PWIVEBSITY  OF   C  ALIFORM  I A   PUBLICATIONS 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


The  Cost  of  Producing  Market  Milk  and 
Butterfat  on  246  California  Dairies 


BY 

R.  L/ ADAMS 


Pieterje  Bloom  Mead,  producer   of  1004.4  pounds  of  butterfat   and   28,235. 
pounds  of  milk. 


BULLETIN  No.  372 

November,  1923 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 
BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 
1923 


THE   COST   OF    PRODUCING   MARKET  MILK  AND 
BUTTERFAT  ON  246  CALIFORNIA  DAIRIES 


By  E.  L.  ADAMS 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Part  I.   Introduction 5 

Motive  for  the  Study 5 

Territories  Studied 5 

Method  of  collecting  the  data 6 

Items  determining  costs 9  . 

Manner  of  assembling  data 9 

Manner  of  presenting  the  findings 16 

Individual  dairy  findings 16 

Part  II.    Costs  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat 17 

1.  Humboldt-Del  Norte  District 17 

Brief  description  of  area 17 

Summary  of  costs '. 22 

Comments  on  cost  findings 25 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 30 

2.  Marin-Sonoma  District 33 

Brief  description  of  area 33 

Summary  of  costs 36 

Comments  on  cost  findings 37 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 41 

3.  Alameda-Contra  Costa-Santa  Clara  District 43 

Brief  description  of  area 43 

Summary  of  costs 46 

Comments  on  cost  findings 50 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 53 

4.  Sacramento- Yolo  District 53 

Brief  description  of  area 53 

Summary  of  costs 57 

Comments  on  cost  findings 59 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 64 

5.  San  Joaquin-Stanislaus  District 65 

Brief  description  of  area 65 

Summary  of  costs 67 

Comments  on  cost  findings 68 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies' 73 

6.  Fresno  District 73 

Brief  description  of  area 73 

Summary  of  costs 75 

Comments  on  cost  findings 77 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 83 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

7.  Kern  District 83 

Brief  description  of  area 83 

Summary  of  costs 86 

Comments  on  cost  findings 88 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 92 

8.  Los  Angeles-Orange  District 94 

Brief  description  of  area 94 

Summary  of  costs 97 

Comments  on  cost  findings 99 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 105 

9.  San  Diego  District , 105 

Brief  description  of  area 105 

Summary  of  costs 110 

Comments  on  cost  findings Ill 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 115 

10.  San  Luis  Obispo  District '. 117 

Brief  description  of  area 117 

Summary  of  costs 119 

Comments  on  cost  findings 121 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 127 

11.  Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz  District 127 

Brief  description  of  area 127 

Summary  of  costs 129 

Comments  on  cost  findings 130 

Costs  of  production  by  individual  dairies 135 

Part  III.   Unit  factors  in  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat 137 

Cost  of  producing  1000  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  100  pounds  of  butterfat....  138 

Unit  factors  entering  into  the  production  of  whole  milk  and  butterfat 142 

Cost  of  production  figures  in  relation  to  price-fixing 142 

Part  IV.   Ways  for  increasing  dairy  profits   disclosed  by  studying   costs  of 

production 146 

Relation  of  production  costs  to  price 146 

Economizing  in  labor  and  feed 150 

Variation  in  feed  costs  of  different  dairies 152 

Variation  in  labor  costs  of  different  dairies 153 

Eliminating  boarder  cows 155 

Profitableness  of  vealing  calves 157 

Value  of  manure  produced  by  the  milking  herds 159 

Decreasing  mortality 160 

Summary 161 

Acknowledgments 163 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat 


PART  I.     INTRODUCTION 

MOTIVE    FOR   THE    STUDY 

During  the  fall  of  1921,  the  College  of  Agriculture,  through  its 
Division  of  Farm  Management,  undertook  the  task  of  determining 
the  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  on  representative 
dairies  in  the  more  important  commercial  dairying  sections  of  the 
state.  This  publication  is  the  result  of  the  findings  obtained  from 
14,250  cows  on  246  dairies  situated  in  eleven  dairying  sections. 
Record  taking  covered  an  entire  year's  business  on  each  dairy.  Most 
of  the  records  were  taken  for  the  year  between  March  1,  1922,  and 
March  1,  1923.  A  few  were  under  observation  for  the  year  ending 
November  1,  1922,  a  number  were  concluded  January  1,  1923,  and 
a  very  few  ended  April  1,  1923.  All  results,  however,  are  comparable 
because  no  unusual  condition  tended  to  vary  the  results  during  the 
entire  period  from  November  1,  1921,  to  April  1,  1923. 

Studies  were  initiated  on  a  total  of  353  dairies,  but,  for  various 
reasons,  a  considerable  number  were  eliminated  either  during  the 
period  of  record  taking  or  in  the  final  analysis.  Some  dairies  were 
closed  out,  the  owners  going  into  other  lines;  some  were  sold;  in  a 
few  cases  inability  to  secure  proper  cooperation  eliminated  some,  in- 
cluding two  or  three  dairying  sections  which  would  otherwise  have 
been  included.  Dairies  producing  certified  milk  were  eliminated, 
thus  confining  this  presentation  to  dairies  strictly  concerned  with 
the  production  of  whole  milk  or  butterfat  of  ordinary  commercial 
grades. 

TERRITORIES   STUDIED 

Typical  commercial  dairying  centers  were  selected  for  study  in 
the  territory  from  San  Diego  County  on  the  south  to  Humboldt 
County  on  the  north.  The  1920  Census  Report  of  dairy  cows  was 
made  the  basis  for  selection.  Eleven  districts  were  studied,  these 
being : 

1.  The  central  and  northern  parts  of  Humboldt  County  and  the 
southern  part  of  Del  Norte  County. 

2.  The  western  portions  of  Marin  and  Sonoma  counties. 

3.  San  Francisco  Bay  section  comprising  dairies  in  Contra  Costa, 
Alameda,  and  Santa  Clara  counties 

4.  Sacramento  and  Yolo  counties  grouped  together. 


b  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

5.  Southern  San  Joaquin  and  northern  Stanislaus  counties  con- 
sidered as  a  single  district. 

6.  Southern  Fresno  and  northern  Kings  counties  grouped  together. 

7.  The  territories  surrounding  Bakersfield,  Delano,  McFarland, 
and  Wasco  in  Kern  County  handled  as  a  single  unit. 

8.  Los  Angeles  and  Orange  counties  handled  jointly  as  typical  of 
southern  California  conditions. 

9.  Certain  valleys  tributary  to  and  supplying  the  city  of  San 
Diego  in  San  Diego  County. 

10.  The  area  around  the  towns  of  Harmony,  Cambria  and  Cayucos 
in  San  Luis  Obispo  County. 

11.  Dairying  districts  in  Monterey,  San  Benito  and  Santa  Cruz 
counties  which  because  of  similar  conditions  could  be  grouped  to- 
gether. 

The  accompanying  sketch  map  indicates  at  a  glance  the  location 
of  these  various  districts  within  the  state's  boundaries. 

Attempts  to  include  other  sections,  notably  Imperial  Valley,  Merced 
County,  Glenn  County,  and  Butte  County,  failed  because  of  either 
a  lack  of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  dairymen  from  whom  the  data 
had  to  be  obtained,  or  inability  to  secure  satisfactory  local  assistance 
in  record  taking. 

In  the  following  pages,  each  of  the  eleven  districts  is  handled 
separately. 

METHOD    OF    COLLECTING    THE    DATA 

Care  was  exercised  in  selection  to  secure  so  far  as  possible  repre- 
sentative dairies  which,  grouped  together,  would  constitute  a  cross- 
section  of  the  industry  as  a  whole  within  the  particular  community. 
If  small  dairies  were  the  rule,  with  only  a  sprinkling  of  large  dairies, 
those  selected  for  study  were  prorated  in  accordance  with  the  situation 
as  affecting  the  total  number  of  dairies.  If  large  dairies  were  the 
rule,  care  was  used  to  include  in  the  studies  a  proper  proportion  of 
large  dairies  in  the  number  finally  selected.  In  the  same  way,  an 
attempt  was  made  to  have  good  representation  of  the  character  of 
dairies  and  nationality  of  dairymen,  in  accordance  with  the  general 
situation.  It  is  believed  that  the  findings  are  sufficiently  typical  of 
(the  districts  so  that  though  the  number  of  dairies  may  be  small,  yet 
they  constitute  a  reliable  index. 

Record-taking  consisted  of  two  inventories,  one  at  the  beginning 
and  the  other  at  the  end  of  the  year  covered  by  the  study,  and  twelve 
monthly  reports  of  operating  details. 


COST  OF  PRODUCING   MARKET   MILK   AND  BUTTERFAT  7 

The  first  inventory  reported  the  method  of  handling  the  dairy ; 
method  of  breeding;  times  of  milking;  nse  of  by-products;  national^ 
of  dairymen  and  milkers ;  farm  data  covering  the  total  acreage  used 
in  dairying  and  its  character;  the  number  of  acres  of  pasture  with 
details  as  to  carrying  capacity  and  values;  herd  data  showing  the 
number,  age,  condition  of  the  herd,  and  average  length  of  lactation 
period;  a  detailed  report  for  each  building  and  structure  used  in 


/tfftAnrfr  <f  tap.  G** 

AZ%  H    f       '                J  )       ,\r~ 

\y_          SISKIYOU          |    MOOOC 

)  as-'  * 

l      9  '                    .'      SHASTA     I 

/     S  '            .    /                          '    l-ASSEN 
/     ^      ,TPINITY/                               , 

x    i     v~           S 

V  — ' '.     TEHAMA       ,S 

\                    ,                       .  ■'     f     P»-UMA3     \ 

V..-\     v--\V.-    i^^TL 

\  *         V  -    v  WLO  V-  -J    tL  0<mAI?  '  X 

^J^((<Etz11       jf  \        /TUOLUMNE^.              X 

^JV*,"*co"v  Jr  :  v/          ,N  .  mono  \ 

wisyr    \  /°  /  r---x 

^mV'      '"\  **"«■*-              v                x 

r    *V»%(          FRESNO      .J"              1           INYO         \ 

V    V3N          /1l             \                \ 

\       \     "I     ^V'    to,      TUU>RE                                             X 

\    A     ^©/:                \                      \ 

Fig.    1.                                    ^^    \                                                                    ^ 

1.  Humboldt  &                               {•-•/      **.\-*.                     !        3an  Bernardino       \ 

Del  Norte  Counties                         WrA  Barbara!    ""r                   j                                              V 

2.  Western  Marin  &          A  **-"  \"-I_  !VEfm(RA                 I                                                A 

Sonoma  Counties                          **««2s: -^,mm  \iosan«ei£S|                                              JJ 

3.   Contra  Costa,    Alameda,                             V^  **              /               — -■—■«' 

&  Santa  Clara  Counties                                               \d^    "C       ~     "                             K 
l+.   Sacramento  &  Yolo  Counties                                 ^vV  i           riverside               1/ 

Stanislaus  Counties                                                                Y""                i                     W 

6.   Fresno  County                                                                         \  %           J     .mperial      S 

7.  Kern  County    (vicinity   of   Bakersfield)      ss.  N  _        A       %Q     ,                         J 

S.    Los   Angeles  &  Orange  Counties                                             tf9)     °    '  _^___ f 

9.  San  Diego  County                                               **  *-*****<■    ^L— -*- 

10.   San  Luis   Obispo  County 

11.   Monterey,   San  Benito  &  Santa  Cruz  Counties. 

Fig.  1.     Location  of  areas  where  cost  of  milk  production  studies  were  carried  on. 


0  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

connection  with  the  dairy ;  a  full  list  of  dairy  equipment ;  an  estimate 
of  operating  capital  deemed  necessary  to  meet  expenses;  the  amount 
of  reserve  necessary  to  tide  the  business  over  times  of  business  de- 
pression, accident,  disease,  market  slumps;  and  finally,  data  concern- 
ing the  management  charge  for  dairies  handled  by  paid  managers. 

The  second  inventory  was  largely  a  repetition  of  the  items  appear- 
ing in  the  first  inventory  to  secure  data  concerning  herds,  buildings, 
dairy  equipment,  pasture  insurance,  and  tax  charges. 

The  monthly  reports  covered,  for  each  calendar  month,  changes 
in  the  milking  herd;  amount  of  labor  expended  including  rate  of 
payment  and  average  length  of  work-day;  horse  labor;  automobile 
or  truck  utilized  for  the  dairy;  cost  of  contract  hauling  of  milk; 
amounts,  kind  and  farm  value  of  both  home-grown  and  purchased 
feeds  used  during  the  month;  determination  of  feed  and  labor  costs 
in  connection  with  the  keeping  of  bulls ;  expenditures  for  new  equip- 
ment such  as  cans,  separators,  milk  pails ;  expenditures  for  the  upkeep 
of  buildings — both  materials  and  labor ;  payments  for  insurance  and 
taxes;  outlay  for  supplies  such  as  salt,  spray  material,  washing 
powder,  stock  medicine,  gasoline,  and  separator  or  milking  machine 
parts;  rental  payments;  receipts  from  sales  of  milk,  cream,  butterfat, 
skimmilk,  cows  or  bulls  from  milking  herd,  unweaned  calves,  hides, 
manure;  and  minor  miscellaneous  items  such  as  feed  bags,  boarding 
cows  pending  breeding,  stock  killed  accidentally,  bull  service;  state- 
ment of  home  or  ranch  use  of  milk,  cream,  skimmilk,  and  manure; 
statement  of  the  value  of  calves  weaned  during  the  month  and  of 
sales  of  weaned  young  stock. 

Supplementary  records  were  also  taken  of  data  necessary  to 
properly  determine  the  correct  charge  for  horse  labor,  trucks,  and 
automobiles  used  in  connection  with  the  dairy. 

The  collection  of  data  was  obtained  by  three  men  employed  solely 
for  the  purpose  of  helping  in  this  investigation,  supplemented  by  the 
efforts  of  a  number  of  collaborators  who  were  employed  on  part  time 
to  assist  in  rounding  out  the  collection  of  information.  The  personnel 
of  the  collaborators  consisted  of  ten  men  employed  primarily  at  cow 
testing,  four  high  school  teachers,  one  dairy  inspector,  one  creamery 
operator,  and  one  man  primarily  engaged  in  general  farming. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat 


ITEMS    DETERMINING    COSTS 

The  summary  tables  presented  in  connection  with  the  details  of 
each  district  set  forth  the  various  costs  which,  together,  make  up  the 
gross  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  or  butterfat  or  both,  from  which 
are  then  deducted  credits  for  calves,  manure,  skimmilk,  or  any  other 
item  that  should  be  deducted  to  determine  the  net  cost.  Both  direct 
and  indirect  costs  are  included.  Direct  costs  are  made  up  of  actual 
expenditures  for  labor,  feed,  hauling,  and  supplies.  The  indirect 
costs  consists  of  interest  on  operating  capital,  herd  charge,  bull  charge, 
building  charge,  corral  charge,  and  equipment  charge. 

MANNER    OF   ASSEMBLING    DATA 

In  collecting  the  data,  attention  was  confined  to  the  milking  herd, 
all  other  operations  being  ignored.  Thus,  the  raising  of  crops,  of 
hogs,  of  young  cattle,  or  similar  activities  were  ignored  as  not  being 
primarily  "a  phase  of  the  dairying  business.  Calves  were  credited 
to  the  dairy  at  their  value  when  four  or  five  days  old,  from  then  on 
any  increase  in  value  being  deemed  part  of  the  young  stock  operations 
rather  than  pertaining  to  the  dairy  itself. 

Man  Labor. — Man  labor  was  studied  in  hours  spent  in  manual 
labor  in  handling  the  dairy  at  the  going  wage,  including  the  value 
of  board  and  other  perquisites.  Management  was  determined  by 
estimating  the  amount  of  time  spent  by  the  operator  in  purely 
managerial  details  at  the  going  salary  scale  for  operating  a  similar 
business  or  at  the  actual  rate  paid  if  the  operator  were  receiving  a 
salary. 

Horse  Lai) or. — The  cost  of  horse  labor  was  determined  from  the 
following  items  which  enter  into  this  charge:  Feed;  depreciation 
on  horses,  horse  equipment,  and  barns;  mortality  of  horses;  upkeep 
of  equipment  and  barns;  miscellaneous  items  such  as  shoeing  and 
veterinary ;  labor  of  feeding  and  grooming ;  and  interest  at  6  per  cent 
on  the  investment  in  horses  and  horse  equipment.  From  the  sum 
of  these  items  any  credits  for  foals  or  rentals  were  made.  The  net 
cost  of  keeping  a  horse  was  then  divided  by  the  estimated  number 
of  hours  used  a  year  to  obtain  the  hour  cost,  and  the  proper  charge 
made  against  the  dairy  for  all  horse  labor  there  used. 

Use  of  Trucks  and  Automobiles. — The  charge  for  the  use  of  trucks 
and  automobiles  was  determined  by  finding  out  the  total  mile  charge 
for  all  work  done  by  such  equipment  and  then  pro-rating  against 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

the  dairy  its  proportion  based  on  the  number  of  miles  used  solely 
for  dairy  purposes.  This  charge  was  made  up  of  depreciation, 
interest,  insurance,  taxes,  and  yearly  repairs,  depreciation  based  on 
the  original  cost  and  estimated  life  of  the  vehicle,  and  interest  on 
the  average  value  during  the  year  involved.  To  this  figure  was  then 
added  operating  costs  for  gasoline,  oil,  tires,  and  tubes. 

Feeds. — To  eliminate  the  necessity  of  becoming  involved  in  land 
values,  all  feeds  contributed  by  the  ranch — whether  pasture,  hay,  con- 
centrates, or  others,  were  charged  at  farm  value,  i.e.,  market  value 
less  cost  of  preparing  for  sale  and  delivering.  Purchased  feeds  were 
figured  at  cost  delivered  to  the  dairy. 

Hauling. — The  hauling  charge,  if  done  by  the  ranch,  was  covered 
under  labor,  but  if  paid  in  cash  for  contract  hauling  was  taken  at 
the  actual  sum  spent.  On  some  dairies,  both  ranch  hauling  and  con- 
tract hauling  charges  were  encountered. 

Miscellaneous  Items. — This  classification  is  primarily  concerned 
with  the  cost  of  supplies  such  as  washing  powder,  gasoline,  oil,  fuel, 
separator  and  milking  machine  parts,  veterinary  supplies  and  similar 
items. 

Insurance. — Insurance  when  encountered  is  made  up  of  the  actual 
yearly  premiums  paid  by  the  dairymen  for  insuring  cattle,  buildings, 
equipment,  feed,  or  the  carrying  of  workmen's  compensation  liability. 
The  amount  in  each  instance  is  entered  under  the  proper  heading. 

Taxes. — The  sums  which  were  actually  expended  by  the  dairymen 
for  taxes  for  the  year  involved  in  the  study  were  obtained  from  the 
assessors'  books  in  the  respective  county  seats,  or  from  the  books  in 
the  City  Hall  if  the  dairy  happened  to  be  within  the  confines  of  an 
incorporated  town.  Taxes  were  encountered  in  connection  with  the 
dairy  herds,  dairy  buildings,  dairying  equipment,  and  in  getting  at 
the  right  charge  for  horse  and  mechanical  labor.  In  determining  the 
building  tax,  an  estimate  had  to  be  made  because  most  assessors'  books 
gave  a  single  figure  for  all  buildings  without  segregating  according 
to  use.  In  such  cases,  it  was  necessary  to  estimate  the  percentage  of 
the  total  sum  chargeable  against  the  dairy. 

Investments. — Capital  invested  in  herds,  dairy  buildings,  dairy 
equipment,  and  improvements  in  connection  with  the  corrals  and  stock 
quarters,  such  as  fences,  feed  racks,  water  troughs,  shelters,  flooring, 
etc.,  was  handled  as  an  investment.  Lands  used  for  pasturage  or  for 
the  production  of  feed  were  not  included  under  investment.  Since 
productive  land  values  are  difficult  to  determine,  no  land  investments 
were  taken  into  account  other  than  those  in  corrals,  lanes,  building 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       11 

sites,  feed  lots,  and  those  occupied  by  stock  water  facilities.  Lands 
used  for  producing  feed  for  the  dairy  were  allowed  a  proper  sum 
based  on  the  going  rate  for  pasture,  and  the  farm  value  for  all  hay, 
grain,  or  other  feeds  produced,  as  discussed  under  feed  above.  This 
method  eliminated  danger  of  over-valuing  lands,  or  inclusion  of  land 
values  on  a  scale  of  suburban  prices  rather  than  upon  strictly  agricul- 
tural productive  values. 

The  value  of  the  feeds  produced,  taken  at  farm  prices,  from  the 
dairying  standpoint  at  least,  automatically  determines  the  land  value. 

The  investment  charge  for  lands  in  corrals,  lanes,  etc.,  was  made 
up  of  the  crop  rental  value  for  such  lands.  The  reason  for  this  is 
obvious.  If  lands  regularly  rent  for  $25,  $30,  or  $40  for  agricultural 
purposes,  yet  have  a  market  value  of  $1000  or  $1500  per  acre,  interest 
at  6  per  cent,  if  taken  at  the  market  value,  would  result  in  an  inor- 
dinately high  charge  of  $60  to  $90  instead  of  the  actual  payments  of 
less  than  half  as  much. 

In  the  event  that  new  investments  were  made  during  the  year, 
such  investments  were  taken  into  account  in  accordance  with  the 
length  of  time  that  they  were  in  use  during  the  period  covered  by 
this  study  and  pro-rated  accordingly. 

Interest  Charges. — Interest  was  allowed  upon  all  investments 
entering  into  the  dairy  business,  as  outlined  in  the  preceding  para- 
graph. Interest  was  charged  against  the  average  investments  in  dairy 
cattle,  in  buildings,  in  corral  improvements  and  in  dairying  equipment, 
as  shown  by  the  data  set  forth  in  the  two  inventories.  Interest  was 
also  charged  upon  sums  needed  for  operating  capital  required  to  meet 
current  expenses. 

The  amount  of  herd  investment  upon  which  interest  was  charged 
was  made  up  of  the  average  number  of  cows  and  bulls  maintained 
throughout  the  year  at  average  values  shown  by  the  first  and  second 
inventories.  This  figure  therefore  reflects  any  changes  in  values  from 
such  causes  as  fluctuating  markets,  selling  off  of  old  cows,  purchase 
of  better  stock,  introduction  of  young  heifers  or  any  changes  affecting 
the  selling  value  of  the  herd. 

Interest  Rate. — In  all  instances,  interest  has  been  charged  at  the 
flat  rate  of  6  per  cent.  While  safe  investments  may  be  considered 
to  average  but  4,  4%,  4%,  or  some  percentage  close  to  these,  yet 
capital  utilized  for  farming,  whether  for  investment  or  in  operating 
expense  is  subject  to  certain  risks,  of  which  climatic  changes  in 
connection  with  feed  production,  danger  of  accident,  possibilities  of 
disease,  fire,  inadequate  transportation,  insufficient  labor,  unforeseen 


12  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — -EXPERIMENT    STATION 

drops  in  market  prices,  are  examples.  Because  of  these  risks,  a  higher 
rate  is  justified.  The  argument  is  recognized  that  farmers  gen- 
erally are  not  financiers  and  if  compelled  to  reinvest  their  funds  in 
some  line  other  than  farming  would  have  to  be  content  with  savings 
bank  or  government  bond  rates.  Such  argument  ignores  possible 
investment  in  municipal  or  industrial  stocks  and  bonds  which  may 
pay  as  high  as  7  to  8  per  cent.  The  rate  of  interest  paid  for  the  use 
of  money  borrowed  for  farming  purposes  is  sometimes  advanced  as 
the  proper  basis  for  determining  the  rate  that  a  farmer  should  secure, 
but  earnings  from  such  loans  are  not  always  net  to  the  loaner  because 
of  costs  of  placing  and  collecting,  occasional  bad  loans,  lapses  in  in- 
terest payments,  and  taxes  upon  incomes.  All  things  considered  a 
rate  of  6  per  cent  was  deemed  fair.  However,  if  exception  be  taken 
to  the  use  of  this  particular  rate,  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  sufficient 
detail  in  the  tables  will  permit  the  reworking  with  any  other  rate. 

Depreciation. — Ageing  of  cattle,  wearing  out  of  buildings  and  of 
equipment,  with  attendant  exhaustion  of  capital  invested  therein  are 
taken  care  of  by  depreciation.  In  some  cases  appreciation,  or  an 
actual  gain  in  values  during  the  year,  occurred. 

Depreciation  was  taken  into  account  in  connection  with  the  dairy 
herds,  the  buildings,  the  improvements  of  the  land  set  aside  for 
corrals  and  stock  quarters,  the  dairying  equipment,  and  in  connection 
with  the  estimate  of  the  costs  of  horse  labor  and  use  of  automobiles 
and  trucks. 

In  the  event  that  additional  investments  in  buildings,  equipment, 
or  corral  and  stock  quarters  improvements  were  made  during  the  year 
the  amount  of  depreciation  was  pro-rated  in  occordance  with  the 
length  of  time  used. 

Figures  for  depreciation  of  buildings  and  equipment  were  deter- 
mined from  the  dairyman's  estimates  of  the  probable  life  of  the  item 
involved  divided  into  its  first  cost. 

Depreciation  of  dairy  herds  was  determined  separately  for  cows 
and  bulls.  Values  were  placed  by  their  owners  upon  the  animals  at 
the  time  when  the  first  inventory  was  taken.  The  value  of  the  herds 
to  the  dairymen  when  the  second  inventory  was  taken  was  again 
determined,  valuations  being  then  made  on  the  basis  of  any  increase 
or  decrease  in  the  value  to  the  dairy  of  the  individual  animals  irre- 
spective of  market  changes.  The  figures  of  depreciation  were  deter- 
mined by  finding  the  difference  between  the  sum  of  the  animals  at 
the  time  of  taking  the  first  inventory  to  which  was  added  the  value 
(at  the  time  of  placing)   of  any  additional  animals  placed  in  the 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         13 

herd  during  the  year.  From  this  total  was  then  deducted  the  value 
of  the  herd  on  the  basis  of  the  second  inventory  figures,  to  which  were 
added  any  returns  from  sales  of  herd  cattle,  values  of  animals  dying, 
receipts  from  sales  of  hides,  and  amount  of  damages  recovered  for 
animals  accidentally  killed.  In  a  number  of  herds,  an  appreciation 
rather  than  a  depreciation  of  values  occurred.  This  method  took  into 
account  disposal  of  old  or  poor  stock,  and,  as  well,  increase  in  values 
of  purchased  cattle  or  home-grown  heifers  placed  in  the  milking  herd. 

Mortality  in  Herd. — All  deaths  occurring  in  the  milking  herd,  of 
both  cows  and  bulls,  were  taken  at  the  values  placed  upon  them  at 
the  time  the  loss  occurred.  If  accidentally  killed  so  that  insurance 
or  accident  returns  were  obtained,  the  amount  thus  secured  was 
credited  to  the  herd  and  the  net  loss  only  taken  into  account. 

Upkeep. — All  moneys  spent  in  upkeep  of  buildings,  dairy  house 
equipment,  or  corrals  and  stock  quarters  by  the  individual  dairies 
studied  in  a  given  area  were  recorded  and  the  total  charged  as  an 
item  of  cost  against  the  year 's  business  of  the  group.  For  individual 
dairies,  a  figure  was  used  which  represented  the  average  expenditures 
per  $100  of  investment  for  the  group  in  determining  upkeep  charges 
for  buildings  and  corrals  together  with  their  improvements.  This 
method  does  not  show  variations  between  individual  dairies  but  the 
item  is  of  small  size  and  relatively  not  important.  In  figuring  upkeep 
of  equipment,  the  actual  sum  expended  by  the  individual  dairy  was 
included  in  arriving  at  the  cost,  since  expenditure  for  upkeep  is  here 
largely  a  matter  of  replacing  parts  and  making  repairs,  investment 
remaining  practically  the  same. 

Credits. — From  the  gross  cost  as  determined  by  summing  up  the 
various  items — operating,  investment,  and  overhead — were  then  de- 
ducted certain  credits.  These  consisted  of  calves,  skimmilk  when 
butterfat  sold  as  cream  was  the  principal  product,  and  manure. 

Calves. — The  calves  were  credited  to  the  dairy  herd  at  a  per  head 
value  when  four  or  five  days  old,  or  at  the  time  when  the  milk  could 
be  used  for  human  consumption.  The  values  for  calves  were  very 
variable,  depending  on  the  local  demand,  the  desirability  of  raising 
heifer  calves  for  later  incorporation  in  the  milking  herd,  the  breed, 
the  possibility  of  saving  bull  calves  for  sires,  and  the  pureness  of  the 
breeding.  The  values  covered  only  calves  that  lived  beyond  the 
colostrum  period,  but  took  into  account  all  kept,  whether  for  future 
vealing  or  for  weaning.  Once  the  price  was  set  for  the  calves,  no 
further  account  was  taken  of  them  in  so  far  as  the  dairy  was  con- 
cerned, although  some  study  was  made  of  the  relative  profitableness 


14  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

of  raising  to  the  vealing  or  weaning  stage,  with  milk  taken  at  going- 
prices,  and  the  value  of  the  marketable  calf  then  compared  with  prices 
which  could  be  obtained. 

Skimmilk. — When  the  output  of  the  dairies  under  observation  was 
sold  as  whole  milk,  no  credit  was  obtainable  for  skimmilk,  but  if  but- 
terfat  was  sold  as  cream  then  the  amount  of  skimmilk  was  deemed 
a  credit  even  though  no  actual  use  was  made  of  it.  In  the  case  of 
districts  selling  butterfat,  all  whole  milk  used  in  the  home  or  on  the 
ranch  was  considered  in  terms  of  butterfat  and  skimmilk,  the  butter- 
fat  being  added  to  the  totals  sold  from  the  district  as  shown  by  the 
sales,  and  the  skimmilk  credited  in  full.  When  cream  was  sold,  only 
the  portion  recovered  by  the  separating  was  credited,  no  allowance 
being  made  for  the  skimmilk  shipped  with  the  butterfat  to  make  up 
the  usual  consistency  of  cream.  Dairymen's  estimates  of  the  value 
to  them  of  any  skimmilk  produced  were  used  in  obtaining  weighted 
averages  of  the  credit  to  be  allowed  in  a  given  community. 

Manure. — Manure  credits  were  allowed  both  on  the  sales  and  ranch 
use  of  the  output  from  the  dairy.  In  every  instance  the  dairyman 
was  asked  to  place  a  value  on  the  output.  As  a  result,  in  the  case 
of  some  dairymen,  particularly  tenant  farmers  or  operators  possessing 
unusually  rich  land  with  no  outside  market  for  manure,  the  credit 
was  small  or  nothing.  In  most  cases  dairymen  were  loath  to  place 
any  estimate  on  the  field  droppings  although  most  men  believed  that 
there  was  some  material  credit.  Hence  in  most  cases  values  are 
applicable  mostly  to  corral  accumulations.  If  a  market  exists,  as  is 
outstandingly  the  case  in  southern  California,  then  the  credit  is  a 
substantial  item.  If  the  field  accumulations  were  added  the  total 
would  undoubtedly  be  greater  than  the  figure  finally  obtained. 

Net  Cost. — The  net  cost  is  the  result  obtained  after  deducting  the 
total  value  of  the  credits  from  the  gross  cost  as  made  up  from  the 
various  items  discussed  above.  In  subsequent  pages  the  costs  for 
the  different  districts  have  been  analyzed  to  show  the  cost  per  cow 
for  the  various  factors  involved  in  getting  at  both  gross  and  net  costs. 

Production. — In  each  district  both  total  production  and  average 
production  per  cow  per  year  were  determined. '  Total  production, 
reported  either  as  butterfat  or  whole  milk,  depending  on  the  method 
of  selling,  was  then  converted  for  all  dairies  in  terms  of  butterfat 
and  whole  milk  for  districts  selling  both  products.  Commonly  in 
every  district  some  butterfat  was  sold  as  cream  during  times  of  over- 
production even  though  whole  milk  selling  was  the  rule,  while  in  but- 
terfat producing  areas,  sales  of  whole  milk  were  occasionally  reported, 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         15 

particularly  if  cheese  making  was  practiced.  In  converting,  full 
credit  for  all  available  skim  mi  Ik  was  given. 

Total  production  was  finally  reported  in  the  summary  tables  for 
each  of  the  districts  according  to  the  usual  kind  of  product  disposed 
of.  Thus  in  Marin  and  Sonoma  counties  and  in  San  Luis  Obispo 
County  the  selling  of  butterfat  as  cream  was  the  rule,  in  Los  Angeles 
and  Orange  counties  the  great  bulk  of  the  output,  in  fact  practically 
all,  was  sold  as  whole  milk  but  upon  a  butterfat  content  basis.  In 
Kern  County  sales  were  well  distributed  between  whole  milk  and 
butterfat  in  cream  and  the  production  was  reported  in  terms  of  both. 

The  average  production-per-cow  figures  are  indicative  rather  than 
absolute.  They  were  obtained  by  dividing  the  total  yearly  produc- 
tion, both  for  the  individual  dairies  and  for  the  district  as  a  whole, 
by  the  average  number  of  cows  handled  during  the  twelve-month 
period.  Hence  these  figures  may  not  check  with  the  cow-testing 
records  as  they  are  subject  to  some  variation  because  all  producing 
-animals  were  taken  into  account  including  springing  heifers,  old  cows 
sold  off  during  the  milking  period,  and  other  factors.  The  data  are, 
however,  comparable  within  the  scope  of  this  publication,  and  are 
valuable  for  the  possible  changes  that  they  suggest,  as  set  forth,  later 
on,  under  the  section  dealing  with  ways  of  increasing  dairy  profits. 

Prices  Received  for  Dairy  Products. — Whenever  prices  are  men- 
tioned to  show  the  returns  received  by  dairymen,  the  figures  were 
obtained  by  adding  up  the  total  receipts  from  sales  at  point  of  de- 
livery by  the  producer  including  hauling  charges  for  all  the  dairies 
studied  in  a  given  section  and  dividing  by  the  amount  of  product 
sold.  Price  figures,  therefore,  apply  only  to  the  daries  involved  in 
the  investigations,  and,  though  indicative,  may  not  be  absolute  guides 
to  the  situation  in  the  entire  community.  They  are  based,  too,  on 
total  sales,  including  surplus  cream  or  milk,  low  grade  output,  and 
similar  conditions  which  reduce  prices  otherwise  obtainable.  But 
the  figures  possess  the  advantage  of  being  a  mirror  of  the  actual, 
existing  conditions  obtaining  throughout  the  year  covered  by  the 
study  in  each  of  the  eleven  sections  where  extensive  collections  of  data 
took  place: 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


MANNER    OF    PRESENTING    THE    FINDINGS 

The  findings  of  the  investigation  are  set  forth  in  Parts  II,  III, 
and  IV  which  follow.  Part  II  records  the  actual  costs  of  producing 
whole  milk  and  butterf at  in  the  eleven  districts,  each  presented  com- 
plete in  itself,  during  the  calendar  year  involved  in  the  study,  with 
certain  pertinent  details  from  tables  prepared  to  show  the  status  of 
each  individual  dairy  in  the  district.  Part  III  sets  forth  the  unit 
factors  involved  in  the  costs  as  found,  and  constitutes  a  ground  plan 
for  determining  future  dairy  costs  as  long  as  dairying  practice  re- 
mains the  same  in  a  given  community.  Part  lV'is  an  outgrowth  of 
the  study  in  that  it  offers  suggestive  ways  by  which  individual  dairy- 
men may  increase  their  profits  by  proper  use  of  means  already  at 
hand. 

Of  the  three  parts,  Part  II  is  perhaps  of  least  permanent  value, 
though  basic  to  all  the  rest  of  the  publication.  Part  III,  with  its 
attempts  to  set  forth  formulae  for  future  use,  is  likely  to  be  of  more 
lasting  value,  while  Part  IV  should  prove  of  worth  to  all  dairymen, 
in  once  more  stressing  the  importance  of  individual  attention  to  one's 
own  business  and  the  excellent  chances  for  improvement  which  lie 
within  the  power  of  the  individual  himself. 

From  a  perusal  of  the  contents  two  personal  phases  should  stand 
forth,  first,  the  part  that  the  individual  can  play  in  working  out  his 
own  business  destiny,  and  second,  the  opportunity  for  constructive 
cooperation  between  dairymen  and  others. 

INDIVIDUAL    DAIRY    FINDINGS 

To  show  something  of  the  wide  variation  existing  in  the  different 
dairies  selected  from  any  section  a  table  has  been  prepared  and  in- 
serted under  each  district  heading,  giving  in  detail  the  amount  of  the 
different  items  involved  in  determining  the  cost  of  milk  and  butter- 
fat  production. 

For  ease  in  comparing  the  findings  of  one  district  with  another, 
and  to  better  indicate  the  production  which  must  be  expected  per  cow 
in  order  to  justify  dairying  under  conditions  as  practiced  in  a  given 
section  in  connection  with  costs  and  receipts  as  of  1922,  this  table 
contains  a  column  setting  forth  the  average  costs  per  cow  for  all  cows 
coming  under  observation. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0P  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         17 


PART  II.     COSTS  OF  PRODUCING  WHOLE  MILK  AND 

BUTTERFAT 

This  part  of  the  report  sets  forth  findings  concerning  actual  costs 
incurred  in  producing  whole  milk  or  butterfat  on  246  dairies  studied 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  basic  data.  The  results  cover  eleven  dis- 
tricts, each  district  being  discussed  individually  in  the  following 
pages. 

In  all  14,250  cows  were  covered  by  the  study,  these  being  located 
as  follows: 

District  Number  of  Dairies  Number  of  Cows 

Humboldt-Del  Norte  25  890 

Marin-Sonoma    19  996 

Alameda,  Contra  Costa  and  Santa  Clara 20  2,782 

Sacramento-Yolo    41  2,912 

San  Joaquin-Stanislaus   17  417 

Fresno 17  767 

Kern  15  599 

Los  Angeles-Orange   40  2,242 

San  Diego  13  583 

San  Luis  Obispo 20  1,329 

Monterey,  San  Benito  and  Santa  Cruz 19  733 

Totals 246  14,250 


1.    HUMBOLDT-DEL    NORTE    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

A  year's  study  was  successfully  completed  on  25  dairies  in  this 
district,  13  of  these  being  in  the  Areata  bottoms  and  12  on  cleared 
redwoods  lands  in  the  Orick-Requa  district.  The  original  plan  of 
study  provided  for  the  collection  of  data  from  the  Ferndale-Loleta 
area  but  though  the  work  was  started  it  came  to  an  early  end  for 
lack  of  facilities  to  carry  on  record  taking.  It  is  unfortunate  that 
this  latter  district  is  not  included  because  it  constitutes  perhaps  the 
best  known  dairying  community  of  the  Humboldt-Del  Norte  area. 
For  purposes  of  comparison  and  record  the  findings  for  the  two 
localities  have  been  kept  separate.  Although  operating  under  some- 
what similar  conditions  dairying  in  the  Areata  district  is  conducted 
on  bottom  lands,  while  the  industry  in  the  Orick-Requa  district  is  on 
reclaimed  forest  lands.     Of  the  13  dairies  in  the  Areata  district  12 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         19 

were  contributory  to  Areata  and  one  to  Fieldbrook.  In  the  Orick- 
Requa  section  6  dairies  were  contributory  to  Requa  and  6  to  Orick. 
In  general  these  dairies  reflect  conditions'  in  central  and  northern 
Humboldt  County  and  in  Del  Norte  County. 

The  record  taking  in  all  cases  covered  the  year  from  March  1, 
1922,  to  March  1,  1923. 

The  Areata  dairies  utilized  1256  acres  of  land,  ranging  in  size 
from  40  to  250  acres.  The  land  was  principally  bottom  land  with  a 
little  additional  rolling  and  brush  covered  hills.  These  lands  were 
utilized  for  pasture  and  for  crop  production. 

The  Orick-Requa  dairies  utilized  1171  acres  of  land,  consisting 
of  creek  and  river  bottom  with  some  contiguous  rolling  and  brush 
covered  hills.  Of  the  1171  acres,  668  acres  were  reported  as  being 
used  exclusively  for  pasture. 

In  both  districts  use  of  pasture  crops  was  an  outstanding  practice. 
In  the  Areata  district  pasturing  was  available  for  from  eight  to  twelve 
months  out  of  the  year.  Much  year-round  pasturing  was  practiced  but 
if  pasture  became  short  the  shortness  occurred  during  the  months 
from  November  to  March  inclusive.  Pasture  grasses  were  largely 
clover  and  rye  grass  which  combined  to  make  a  thick  sod  and  to  pro- 
duce much  feed.  To  supplement  the  pasture,  use  was  made  of  such 
soiling  crops  as  green  vetch  grown  either  singly  or  with  barley  or  oats ; 
clover,  or  clover  and  rye  grass ;  green  corn ;  green  peas  and  barley ;  or 
some  similar  feed.  Feeding  of  these  green  crops  occurred  during  the 
late  spring  and  summer  months.  When  pasturage  was  either  not 
available  or  scanty  and  green  crops  not  to  be  had,  hay  of  clover,  rye 
grass,  or  both  clover  and  rye  grass,  or  oats  and  rye  grass,  or  vetch  and 
oats  or  barley,  or  a  little  alfalfa,  was  fed  during  the  late  fall  and 
winter  months.  Use  was  likewise  made  of  turnips  and  carrots  from 
August  on  for  a  few  months,  and  of  beets  and  rutabagas  during  the 
late  fall  and  winter  months.  With  only  a  single  exception,  concen- 
trates were  coconut  meal  and  barley,  with  some  use  of  mill  feeds, 
alfalfa  meal,  bran,  beet  pulp,  molasses  meal,  and  mill  screenings.  Few 
changes  in  the  character  of  the  concentrates  fed  were  made  during 
the  year.  Six  dairymen  used  three  kinds,  and  two  each  used  four, 
one,  and  two  kinds.  Two  men  made  use  of  silage  during  the  winter 
months. 

In  the  Orick-Requa  district  reliance  was  placed  upon  pasturage 
supplemented  with  hay,  roots,  and  green  feeds.  All  dairymen  in- 
cluded in  the  studies  conducted  in  this  section  possessed  pasture,  all 
but  three  reporting  year-round  pasturing,  with  the  others  having  pas- 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

ture  for  six  months  or  more,  usually  available  from  April  to  October 
inclusive.  All  dairymen  supplemented  their  pasture  with  hay  of 
which  oat  hay  was  more  generally  used,  although  some  use  was  made 
of  clover,  clover  and  rye  grass,  barley,  and  alfalfa  hays.  One  dairy- 
man fed  hay  the  year  round  but  the  majority  confined  hay  feeding 
to  the  period  from  September  to  April,  inclusive.  Eight  of  these 
twelve  dairymen  made  use  during  the  summer  months  of  such  green 
feeds  as  green  clover,  green  corn,  and  green  vetch.  One  dairyman 
utilized  corn  as  silage  during  the  fall  months.  Feeding  of  carrots 
was  generally  practiced  with  some  feeding  of  beets,  such  feeding 
being  done  during  the  months  of  August  to  March  inclusive.  Ten 
of  these  dairymen  fed  concentrates  for  periods  varying  from  one  to 
twelve  months.  Feeding  of  concentrates  apparently  followed  no  gen- 
eral rule,  for  one  dairyman  fed  for  but  a  single  month,  three  more 
for  two  months,  one  each  for  three,  four,  eleven,  and  twelve  months, 
and  two  for  five  months.  When  fed  the  usual  plan  was  to  utilize 
concentrates  during  the  months  from  October  to  May  with  greatest 
feeding  taking  place  during  February,  March,  and  April.  Of  the 
various  concentrates  these  dairymen  favored  coconut  meal  and  bar- 
ley, with  some  use  of  beet  pulp,  mill  feeds,  alfalfa  meal,  middlings, 
and  bran.  Four  dairymen  fed  but  a  single  kind  of  concentrates,  three 
fed  two  kinds,  one  fed  three  kinds,  and  two  fed  four  kinds. 

The  total  number  of  cows  carried  throughout  the  year  averaged 
493  in  the  Areata  district  and  397  in  the  Orick-Requa  district.  The 
size  of  herd  ran  from  10  to  76  cows.  In  the  Areata  district  8  of  the 
13  herds  numbered  from  10  to  37  head,  3  dairies  from  45  to  55  head, 
and  one  each  of  75  and  76.  In  the  Orick-Requa  section,  9  of  the  12 
herds  averaged  during  the  year  from  12  to  34  head,  the  remaining 
3  containing  respectively  50,  59,  and  62  head.  The  average  of  all 
herds  in  the  Areata  district  was  68 ;  in  the  Orick-Requa  district  33. 

The  Jersey  breed  predominated  in  both  districts.  Of  the  13  Areata 
herds  studied,  4  were  composed  of  Jerseys,  4  of  Guernseys,  2  of 
Jerseys  and  Guernseys,  1  of  Shorthorns  and  Holsteins  and  3  of  mixed 
breeds.  In  the  Orick-Requa  district  11  of  the  12  herds  were  reported 
as  being  Jerseys  and  the  twelfth  as  "  grade. " 

Nine  of  the  Areata  dairies  and  8  of  the  Orick-Requa  herds  were 
headed  by  purebred  bulls,  numbering  19  head  of  which  16  were 
registered.  Of  the  total,  13  were  reported  as  Jerseys,  5  as  Guernseys, 
with  1  not  stated.  Two  registered  Guernsey  cows  from  the  Areata 
district  and  5  registered  Jersey  cows  from  the  Orick-Requa  district 
were  reported. 


BULLETIN   372]       C0ST  0P  PRODUCING  MARKET   MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         21 

In  both  the  Areata  district  and  the  Orick-llequa  district  the 
universal  plan  on  the  dairies  studied  was  to  breed  for  freshening  in 
January,  February,  or  March. 

Milking"  took  place  at  twelve-hour  intervals,  all  dairymen  milking 
at  four,  five,  or  six  o'clock.  Eight  of  the  Areata  and  three  of  the 
Orick-Requa  dairymen  used  milking  machines,  the  rest  practiced  hand 
milking. 


Fig.  3. — Dairying  in  the  redwoods,  cleared  land.    The  Orick-Eequa  dairies  were 
operating  under  these  conditions. 


22  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Nationality  of  milkers  included  American,  Swiss,  Portuguese, 
Indians,  Scotch-Irish,  and  Danes.  In  the  two  districts  the  nationalities 
of  the  operators  were  made  up  of  13  Americans,  5  Swiss,  3  Portuguese, 

3  Danes,  and  1  Scotch-Irish. 

Of  the  13  dairymen  in  the  Areata  district  9  sold  whole  milk  and 

4  sold  butterfat.  Of  the  12  dairymen  in  the  Orick-Requa  district 
all  sold  whole  milk.  In  the  Areata  district  skimmilk  and  buttermilk, 
bought  back  from  the  creameries,  were  utilized  in  the  feeding  of  calves 
and  hogs.  Sales  from  the  Areata  district  were  made  to  the  California 
Central  Creameries,  and  to  the  United  Creamery  Association.  The 
dairymen  at  Orick  sold  their  product  to  the  California  Central  Cream- 
eries'  cheese  factory  located  at  Orick,  while  the  milk  from  the  Requa 
dairies  went  to  the  Requa  cheese  plant  of  the  Western  Meat  Company. 

Eight  of  the  Areata  and  nine  of  the  Orick-Requa  dairymen  were 
owners  of  the  farms  under  their  control,  the  others  were  tenants. 

Summary  of  Costs. — The  kind  and  amount  of  the  various  items 
entering  into  the  Areata  and  the  Orick-Requa  districts  are  set  forth 
separately  in  the  two  following  tables. 

TABLE  1 
.Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Arcata  District,  Humboldt  County 

Number  of  dairies 13 

Number  of  cows 493 

Number  of  bulls 18 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  79,950  hours $  18,295.00 

Man — management 6,540.00 

Horse,  1,968  hours 483.61 

Insurance 70.00 

Total  labor  cost $25,388.61 

Feed 

Pasture $9,688.00 

Hay,  807.36  tons 17,483.25 

Concentrates,  269.91  tons ' 9,772.48 

Roots,  2,374  tons 4,450.30 

Green  feed,  1,324  tons 5,660.30 

Silage,  34  tons 204.00 

Alfalfa  meal,  7V2  tons 243.00 

Total  feed  costs 47,501.33 

Hauling  milk 1,948.43 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 1,452.63 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $5,100  @  6% 306.00 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         23 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle,  $40,802.56 

@6% $2,448.14 

Mortality:  18  cows,  $1290 1,290.00 

Taxes 702.92 

Insurance 75.00 

Gross  herd  charge $4,516.06 

Appreciation 560.45 

Net  herd  charge 3,955.61 

Building  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $25,950.50  @  6%      $1,557.02 

Depreciation 695.00 

Upkeep 165.00 

Taxes 192.28 

Insurance 112.90 

Total  buildings  charge 2,722.20 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes,  173^2  acres $319.50 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $2,838.33 

@6% 170.29 

Depreciation  of  improvements 327.30 

Upkeep 137.00 

Total  corral  charge $954.09 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $4,724.15  @  6%         $283.41 

Depreciation 796.81 

Upkeep 554.53 

Taxes 15.42 

Total  equipment  charge 1,650.17 

Total  Gross  Cost $85,879.07 

Credits 

Calves,  168 $677.50 

Hides 26.50 

Manure 1,911.50 

Total  credits $2,615.50 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $83,263.57 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 3,048,690  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2.73 

Net  cast  of  butterfat  in  Cream 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $83,263.57 

Credit  for  skimmilk,  22,207.24  hundredweight  @,  11.7  cents  per 

100  pounds 2,597.82 

Net  cost  of  butterfat  in  cream $80,665.75 

Total  production  of  butterfat  in  cream 131,842.08  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  cream 61.2  cents 

»  i        j     j-  f  6184  pounds  of  whole  milk 

Average  annual  production  per  cow I  F  ' 

&  '  l  \  267.4  pounds  of  butterfat 


24  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE  2 

Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Orick-Kequa  Districts, 
Humboldt  and  Del  Norte  Counties 

Number  of  dairies 12 

Number  of  cows 397 

Number  of  bulls 13 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  48,479  hours 112,925.20 

Man — management 4,080.00 

Horse,  5,242  hours 978.98 

Truck  and  automobile,  9,945  miles 898.50 

Total  labor  cost $18,882.68 

Feed 

Pasture $8,864.00 

Hay,  505.5  tons 13,491.00 

Concentrates,  67.62  tons 3,256.14 

Roots,  1170  tons 2,500.80 

Green  feed,  426  tons 1,500.80 

•Silage,  29  tons 174.00 

Alfalfa  meal,  2Y2  tons 156.50 

Insurance 87.00 

Total  feed  costs 30,030.24 

Hauling  milk 817.12 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 1,200.92 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $3,350.00  @  6% 201.00 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle,  $45,247.99 

@6% $2,714.87 

Mortality:  3  cows,  $475;  1  bull,  $200 675.00 

Taxes 358.80 

Gross  herd  charge $3,748.67 

Appreciation 1,864.10 

Net  herd  charge 1,884.57 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $1 1,594.50  @  6%  $695.67 

Depreciation 464.75 

Upkeep 160.20 

Taxes 77.38 

Insurance 1 1 7.66 

Total  buildings  charge 1,515.66 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         25 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes $222.50 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $875.23 

@6% 52.51 

Depreciation  of  improvements 125.00 

Upkeep : 2.00 

Total  corral  charge 402.01 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $2,554.21  @  6%         $153.24 

Depreciation "...  585.75 

Upkeep " 399.18 

Taxes 10.32 

Total  equipment  charge 1,148.49 

Total  gross  cost $56,082.69 

Credits 

Calves,  165 $839.00 

Hides 168.80 

Manure 1,199.00 

Total  credits $2,206.80 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $53,875.8 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 2,230,182  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2.41 

Total  production  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 98,746.4  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterf  at  in  whole  milk 54.5  cents 

A  i        j     ,  •  f  5618  pounds  of  whole  milk. 

Average  annual  production  per  cow (  F  ,      ,, 

\  248.7  pounds  of  butterfat. 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  thirteen  herds  under  observation  in  the  Areata  district  were  assessed  for 
taxes  at  $17,270.  Buildings  utilized  by  the  dairy  were  assessed  at  $4527,  and 
dairy  equipment  at  $375.  The  tax  rate  varied  from  $3.40  to  $4.50  per  $100  of 
assessed  values.  In  the  Orick-Eequa  district  the  dairy  cows  on  the  twelve  dairies 
where  studies  were  conducted  were  assessed  at  $13,195,  buildings  at  $2905,  and 
dairy  fixtures  at  $400.     The  tax  rate  varied  from  $2.55  to  $2.99. 

Insurance  on  buildings  was  rather  generally  carried,  eleven  of  the  Areata  and 
six  of  the  Orick-Requa  dairymen  reporting  sums  so  spent.  One  dairyman  of  the 
Areata  district  carried  livestock  and  employer's  liability  insurance.  Two  dairy- 
men in  the  Orick-Requa  district  carried  feed  insurance. 

The  average  cost  of  manual  labor  used  on  these  dairies,  based  on  the  totals 
as  shown  in  the  tables,  amounted  to  22.9  cents  per  hour  in  the  Areata  district  and 
26.6  cents  in  the  Orick-Requa  district.  All  the  dairymen  placed  a  figure  represent- 
ing their  idea  of  a  proper  management  charge.  These  figures  are  shown  in  the 
summary  tables  and  amounted  to  36  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor  expenditures  in 
the  Areata  district,  and  31  per  cent  in  the  Orick-Requa  district. 

Horses  were  used  in  connection  with  the  dairy  on  but  five  of  the  Areata  and 
four  of  the  Orick-Requa  districts.  The  cost  on  these  nine  dairies  varied  from 
10.6  cents  to  40.7  cents  per  hour  of  use.  The  average  cost  amounted  to  24.6  cents 
in  the  Areata  and  18.7  cents  in  the  Orick-Requa  districts. 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  4. — Typical  farmstead  layouts  of  the  Areata  dairying  district. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING   MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         27 


Fig.  4. —  (Continued.) 


28  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Trucks  and  automobiles  did  not  figure  in  the  Areata  dairying  activities  under 
study,  but  in  the  Orick-Requa  district  6  of  the  dairies  utilized  4  trucks  and  2  auto- 
mobiles. Costs  per  mile  varied  from  7.2  cents  to  10.2  cents  per  mile  of  use,  aver- 
aging- 9  cents  per  mile. 

The  methods  of  feeding  followed  by  the  two  sections  during  the  year  that  these 
dairies  were  under  observation  have  already  been  covered  above.  During  the  year 
from  March  1,  1922,  the  cost  for  feeds  consumed  by  the  total  number  of  cows  and 
bulls  comprising  the  milking  herds  amounted  to:  Pasture  $20.84  per  cow  per  year; 
hay  $23.59  per  ton;  roots  $1.96  per  ton;  green  feed  $4.09;  silage  $6.00;  con- 
centrates $38.09. 

All  the  Areata  dairymen  paid  for  contract  hauling  of  their  dairy  products  and 
in  addition  each  spent  from  $11.93  to  $278.70  for  supplies,  cow-testing  and  similar 
items.  Four  of  the  Orick-Requa  dairymen  paid  for  contract  hauling,  the  balance 
doing  this  work  themselves,  but  the  cost  is  fully  covered  in  the  figures  for  horse 
labor  and  use  of  trucks  and  automobiles.  Estimates  of  necessary  operating  capital 
totaled  $5100  for  the  Areata  district  and  $3350  for  the  Orick-Requa  district. 

Investment  in  the  Areata  herds  under  observation  amounted  to  $40,802.56,  of 
which  $37,632.74  was  invested  in  cows,  or  slightly  less  than  93  per  cent.  The 
investment  in  the  Orick-Requa  herds  totaled  $45,247.99,  of  which  $42,869.25  was 
made  up  of  cow  values,  or  close  to  95  per  cent.  In  the  two  districts  cow  values 
per  head  ranged  from  $42.50  to  $200,  but  averaged  close  to  $76  in  the  Areata  and 
$108  in  the  Orick-Requa  districts.  Bull  values  ranged  from  $15  to  $612.50,  but 
averaged  about  $179. 

Based  on  sales,  deaths,  purchases,  and  heifers  brought  into  the  milking  strings, 
the  thirteen  Areata  dairies  enjoyed  appreciation,  that  is  an  increase  in  value,  of 
its  dairy  cows  amounting  to  $763.45,  while  bulls  depreciated  $203,  thus  leaving 
a  net  appreciation  for  the  total  animals  in  the  milking  herds  of  $560.45.  In  the 
Orick-Requa  district  appreciation  of  cows  amounted  to  $1674.10,  and  bulls  gained 
in  value  to  the  extent  of  $190,  so  that  total  herd  appreciation  in  this  section 
totaled  $1864.10. 

During  the  year  covered  by  the  record  taking,  the  Areata  dairies  lost  18  cows 
valued  at  $1290,  and  no  bulls.  The  Orick-Requa  district  lost  3  cows  valued  at  $475 
and  1  bull  valued  at  $200.  Total  mortality  therefore  amounted  to  $1965.  The 
average  value  of  all  cows  dying  amounted  close  to  $84  as  against  a  general  average 
for  both  districts  of  $90.55.  Death  losses,  in  percentages,  amounted  to  3.7  per  cent 
of  the  cows  and  0  per  cent  of  the  bulls  in  the  Areata  district,  and  to  0.8  of  1 
per  cent  of  the  cows  and  8  per  cent  of  the  bulls  in  the  Orick-Requa  district. 

Buildings  utilized  in  connection  with  the  dairies  varied  in  extent,  construction, 
and  investment.  The  25  dairies  in  the  2  districts  possessed  26  milking  barns  (one 
dairy  having  2),  10  milk  houses,  2  shelter  barns,  1  hay  barn,  1' bull  shed,  2  silos 
and  an  engine  house.  The  investment  per  dairy  farm  averaged  $1501.80,  but 
ranged  from  $93.50  to  $3889.50.  Of  the  25  dairies  10  had  less  than  $1000  invested 
in  buildings,  5  between  $1000  and  $2000,  8  between  $2000  and  $3000,  and  2  in 
excess  of  $3000.  The  average  investment  in  the  Areata  district  was  close  to 
$2000,  while  in  the  Orick-Requa  district  the  figure  amounted  to  about  $1000  per 
dairy.  Eleven  of  the  25  made  expenditures  for  building  upkeep,  ranging  from  $6 
to  $97,  totaling  $325  for  both  districts,  or  0.9  of  1  per  cent  of  the  investment. 
Depreciation  of  dairy  buildings  amounted  in  money  to  $1136,  or  practically  3  per 
cent  of  the  investment. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         29 

The  25  dairies  in  these  2  districts  utilized  33%  acres  of  land  in  corrals  and 
dairy  building  sites,  averaging  about  1%  acres,  but  ranging  from  %  to  4  acres. 
This  land  was  given  a  rental  value  of  $2.50  to  $75  per  acre,  averaging  $16.06  per 
acre  per  year.  Investment  in  improvements  such  as  water  facilities,  corral  fences, 
shelters,  and  so  on,  totaled  .$2838.33  for  the  Areata  dairies  and  $875.23  for  the 
Orick-Requa  dairies.  The  average  investment  to  the  dairy  in  such  items  was 
therefore  close  to  $218  in  the  Areata  and  to  $73  in  the  Orick-Requa  districts.  The 
range  in  investment  varied  from  $13.75  to  $367.12.  Eleven  of  the  25  dairies  pos- 
sessed an  investment  of  less  than  $100  in  corral  improvements,  6  had  from  $100 
to  $200  invested,  3  from  $200  to  $300,  and  5  (all  in  the  Areata  district)  over 
$300.  Seven  of  these  dairymen  made  expenditures  for  corral  upkeep,  ranging 
from  $2  to  $75,  and  totaling  $139,  or  approximately  y2  of  1  per  cent  of  the  invest- 
ment.    Depreciation  amounted  to  $452.30,  or  16  per  cent  of  the  amount  invested. 

Dairying  equipment  listed  from  the  25  dairies  in  these  2  districts  consisted 
of  11  milking  machines,  8  of  which  were  on  the  Areata  dairies,  302  milk  cans,  82 
milk  pails,  1  motor,  4  milk  tanks,  8  separators,  11  feed  troughs,  1  milk  trough, 
and  a  supply  of  forks,  brooms,  shovels,  brushes,  and  similar  miscellaneous  items. 
The  investment  on  the  25  dairies  amounted  to  $7278.36,  amounting  on  an  average 
to  $271.13,  and  ranging  from  $26.85  to  $892.37.  The  average  for  the  Areata 
district  amounted  to  $363.39,  and  for  the  Orick-Requa  district  to  $212.83.  Of  the 
total  25  dairies,  6  possessed  dairy  equipment  amounting  to  less  than  $100  each, 
9  had  an  investment  of  from  $100  to  $300,  8  of  from  $300  to  $600,  and  2  of  more 
than  $600.  All  dairymen  expended  sums  of  money  on  upkeep,  varying  from 
90  cents  to  $127.75,  and  totaling  $953.71  or  13  per  cent  of  the  investment.  Depre- 
ciation amounted  during  the  year  to  $1382.56,  or  19  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the 
investment. 

Miscellaneous  returns  to  the  dairies,  other  than  sales  of  milk  and  cream,  or 
credits  for  calves,  manure,  and  skimmilk,  consisted  of  empty  feed  sacks  and  hides. 
Sales  of  feed  bags  totalled  $104  and  of  hides  $26.50.  These  credits  were  carried 
directly  to  the  department  involved  and  the  proper  allowance  there  made. 

Dropped  calves  kept  for  raising  or  for  vealing  were  variously  valued  at  from 
75  cents  to  $50.  In  the  Areata  district  168  calves  were  valued  at  $667.50,  most 
of  these  being  rated  as  worth  $5  each.  In  the  Orick-Requa  district  165  calves 
were  deemed  worth  saving  and  were  giverj  a  total  value  of  $839,  with  most  of  them 
priced  at  $5  per  head. 

Dairymen  figured  the  value  of  the  manure  from  the  dairies  on  the  basis  of  its 
value  to  them  since  no  sales  were  made.  Totals  of  the  various  estimates  are  given 
in  the  respective  summary  tables.  All  the  dairymen  placed  some  value  on  the 
manure  product. 

Of  the  total  production  from  the  13  dairies  in  the  Areata  district  consisting 
of  3,048,690  pounds  of  whole  milk,  3.5  per  cent  was  used  on  the  dairy,  27.5  per 
cent  sold  as  butterfat  in  cream,  and  69  per  cent  sold  as  whole  milk.  Testing  from 
3.68  to  4.76  per  cent  butterfat  in  the  whole  milk,  this  was  equivalent  to  a  butter 
fat  production  of  131,842.08  pounds.  The  average  test  therefore  amounted  to 
4.32  per  cent  butterfat.  Credit  for  skimmilk  in  this  district  amounted  to  22,207.24 
hundredweight  at  an  average  valuation  of  11.7  cents  per  hundred.  In  the  Orick- 
Requa  district  total  production  amounted  to  2,230,182  pounds  of  whole  milk,  test- 
ing from  4.12  to  4.74  per  cent  butterfat,  or  an  average  of  4.43  per  cent.  The 
production  in  terms  of  butterfat  amounted  to  98,746.4  pounds.     Of  the  total  pro- 


30  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

duetion  8.9  per  cent  was  used  on  the  dairies,  while  91.1  per  cent  was  sold.  Of  the 
total  sales,  6  dairies  sold  butterfat  as  cream,  while  the  remaining  6  sold  whole  milk 
receiving  a  small  credit  for  the  skimmilk  contained  therein.  Close  to  36.4  per  cent 
of  the  total  sales  were  made  as  cream,  with  54.7  per  cent  sold  as  whole  milk. 

The  average  annual  production  per  cow,  figured  upon  the  number  maintained 
in  the  milking  herd  throughout  the  year  amounted  in  the  Areata  district  to  6184 
pounds  of  whole  milk  or  267.4  pounds  of  butterfat.  In  the  Orick-Eequa  district 
the  figures  came  to  5618  pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow  or  248.7  pounds  of  butter- 
fat. The  lowest  average  herd  yield  in  the  Areata  district  amounted  to  3979  pounds 
of  whole  milk  per  cow  per  year,  while  the  lowest  butterfat  yield  was  159.1  pounds. 
The  highest  average  herd  production  in  this  same  district  ran  to  7938  pounds  of 
whole  milk  per  cow  per  year,  and  347.3  pounds  of  butterfat.  In  the  Orick-Eequa 
district  the  lowest  yield  for  any  herd  stood  at  4009  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  177.9 
pounds  of  butterfat  per  cow  per  year.  The  highest  herd  average  in  the  Orick- 
Eequa  district  was  7816  pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow  containing  an  average  of 
360.7  pounds  of  butterfat.  In  the  Areata  district  the  average  herd  production 
fell  below  6000  pounds  per  cow  on  8  dairies,  1  of  these  being  below  5000  pounds. 
In  the  Orick-Eequa  district  7  herds  averaged  below  6000-pound  production,  4  of 
these  7  being  under  5000  pounds.  Figured  on  butterfat  production,  7  of  the  13 
dairies  studied  in  the  Areata  district  had  an  average  butterfat  per  cow  production 
of  less  than  250  pounds  for  the  year,  while  4  had  a  production  in  excess  of  300 
pounds.  In  the  Orick-Eequa  district  5  of  the  12  dairies  where  record  taking  was 
conducted  fell  below  a  250-pound  average,  with  two  topping  the  300-pound  figure. 

Based  on  receipts  obtained  by  the  dairymen  cooperating  in  the  collection  of 
these  costs  data,  the  average  weighed  net  price  received  from  whole  milk  deliveries 
in  the  Areata  district  was  $1.97  per  hundredweight,  while  the  average  price 
obtained  for  butterfat  was  44.7  cents  per  pound.  In  the  Orick-Eequa  district  the 
selling  price  of  whole  milk  amounted  to  $2.12  per  hundredweight,  and  47  cents  per 
pound  for  butterfat  contained  therein. 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

In  tables  3  and  4  are  set  forth  the  average  costs  for  the  twenty-five 
dairies  under  observation  for  an  entire  year  in  the  Areata  and  Orick- 
Requa  districts.  These  columns  set  forth,  one  for  each  dairy,  the 
various  items  entering  into  the  cost  of  producing  milk,  and  serve  to 
indicate  the  wide  spread  in  costs  between  different  dairies  operating 
in  the  same  section.  The  items  are  given  in  terms  of  cost  per  cow 
rather  than  as  totals  for  the  dairy.  The  latter  can  be  determined  by 
multiplying  the  amount  shown  in  the  table  by  the  number  of  cows  as 
set  forth  in  the  second  horizontal  column. 

Dairies  numbered  318  to  331  inclusive  are  in  the  Orick-Requa  dis- 
trict :  Those  numbered  380  to  392  inclusive  are  in  the  Areata  district. 

From  the  data  here  assembled,  the  cost  of  production  for  the 
different  herds  in  the  Areata  district  mounted  from  $2.22  to  $5.77  per 
100  pounds  of  whole  milk.  Butterfat  production  varied  from  46.1 
cents  to  almost  $1.42  per  pound.    In  the  Orick-Requa  district  the  cost 


ir 

00 

00 

CM 

w 

CC 

CM 

o 

CM 

CO 

CM 

o 

o 

c 

M 

§s 

CM    00    CO 

■-I   lO   N    oc 

IO    ^ 

1-H    ■*    CO 

i-l    O 

CM       • 

• 

•    N       • 

•    lO    CO 

«o  o  <c 

CO    i-H 

id  id 

O    m   CM 

o*  >* 

IO    CO    iO 

£^ 

* 

CO 

CO    lO    «© 

CO 

CM    CM 

&% 

6* 

«» 

m 

©  io  c 

O    DON 

Tf<    00    H    N 

iO  o 
CM    CD 

iO           N 

iO    CM 

CO    i-H    00 

co  O  i-i  co 

(O    OIN 

CO   oc 

00       •       • 

CO    *^ 

• 

•    N       • 

•     OS     rH 

a>  o  o- 

CD    ©'    CO*    CM 

i-H     i-H 

os  os  io 

os  co 

lO   IO   -# 

00   o 

•^     i-H 

CM    CO    «# 

CM 

CM     r-l     rH 

m    rH 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

S© 

«# 

e© 

m 

N    00    K 

H     O)00«" 

CD    t- 

os        ^ 

OS  oc 

rH     l>     Tj< 

1§ 

N    lOiC 

CO   O    iC   oc 

i*  os 

Tfl     Tf     CD 

•■#    CM 

CM        ■       • 

• 

•   CM       • 

•     Tt<     O 

<M    CO    0C 

od  d  -H  re 

00    CM 

iO    00    CM 

id  ■<* 

rH     rH     t^ 

*#    b- 

IO 

iO    K5   » 

lO 

IO    CM 

w 

e© 

e© 

«# 

6© 

co  CO  oc 

oo  en  co  cc 

CO   >o 

oo         oo 

00    N 

rH     t^     CM 

I? 

O    CM    i-i 

TfOJO    N 

CM    1> 

^  oo  >o 

Tt<    r-i 

CO       •       • 

• 

•    U5       • 

•     O     rH 

CO  io  c 

00    rjl    i-J    iC 

i>  id 

i-l    00    CM 

1-H     Tf 

t~     "HH     CD 

«5    b- 

iO 

io  io  m 

iO 

tJI    CM 

OS 

m 

m 

S9 

m 

©    t*    CM 

CO    tJ*    CM    CM 

o   00 

CM            CM 

cm  ir: 

N     O      rH 

oo  £ 

CO   ^ 

co  oo  rf 

CM    CO    OS    cc 

l>  o 

CO    iO    CM 

CD    CM 

CO       •       • 

• 

•  o     • 

•     CO     rH 

M    O    i> 

Tj<    tH    i-i    CO 

CM    ^ 

00    00    CM 

GO      Tf< 

Tf<     Tt<     IO 

•*    N 

CO 

N    «5    » 

CM 

CM    CM 

& 

m 

m 

m 

m 

OS    00    t> 

00    00    CO    CO 

OS    00 

i-l            CD 

i-H     N 

Tf<     CO     rH 

co  ^ 

rH      00      rH 

Tf    N    O)    K 

t-     rH 

CO    O    ^ 

CO   iC 

o      •      ■ 

• 

•    CM        • 

■     rH     CO 

r«-   O   Th 

OS    CO    i-t    ■- 

00    CD 

CM    -#    CM 

CM    I> 

IO     rH     IO 

■*    CM 

00 

00    N    S© 

00 

N    CO 

m  i-i 

6© 

e# 

m 

m 

iO  ■>*  O 

<M    O    CO    — 
i-H    O    CM    ifi 

00    OS 

OS          ■* 

OS    CM 

l>    OS    CM 

to 

co  ^ 

OS    00    rH 

I>  rH 

K5NO 

lO  oc 

t^       •       • 

•    N 

•    O    CM 

13    O)    « 

CD    lO    CO    CC 

i™ 

H    00    N 

r-i     CC 

■*    00    CO 

iO    00 

oo  co  m 

00 

N    CM 

S© 

e© 

m 

9& 

s© 

• 

o  b-  c- 

lO    lO    -*    0C 

oo  os 

os        t^ 

os  co 

CD     Tt*     rH 

00    £ 
CO    ^ 

oo  io  cc 

00    <N    Tt<    Tf 

t>    CO 

CO    CO    CM 

CO     r- 

CM       •       • 

• 

•    CM        • 

•    OS    CO 

lO    <tf    — 

00    "*'    rH    CM 

00    t> 

^H      r-l     CM 

rH      IT. 

o  co  i* 

-#     OS    i- 

CD 

O    N    91 

CO 

iO    CO 

& 

«© 

^ 

«© 

m 

to  a  k 

co  »o  o  a 

io  co 

CM           O 

CM    CO 

OS   OS   CO 

co  K 

ONE 

iO    O    CM    CM 

iO    lO 

O  os  co 

O  a- 

o      •      • 

•     • 

.     rH     t^ 

io  io  oc 

CO    t»"    CO    CO 

CO    -^ 

CM    >D    CO 

oo  io  m 

CM    Tf 

O    CO    CD 

Tt<     O 

00 

00 

1>    CM 

m  r-i 

«© 

e© 

m 

m 

lO    CM    CO 

rH    CO    00    CO 

lO    CO 

CM           ^h 

CM    O 

CO    l>    iO 

CO    .- 

o  ■*  •>* 

CO    l>    00    CC 

-*  co 

00    00    Tf 

00    IN 

• 

.  co      • 

•  »d  co 

H    ION 

©  •*'       - 

r-I    CM 

00    CM    CO 

oo  ir; 

co  co  i> 

CD    OS 

00 

i>  io  m 

t» 

]>    CM 

60 

5a 

m 

«© 

m 

CM    CM    rf 

CO    CM    lO    CM 

I-  o 

fr-           00 

N    CM 

lO   tJI    io 

co  "~ 

OS    Tf<     IO    1> 

OS     r-l 

00    00    H 

00    t> 

■  co     • 

•    CO    CO 

Is*,    rH    IQ 

co  id  cm  r^ 

O*    00 

CM    OS    CO 

CM    l> 

15    MN 

OS    CO 

CM    .-H 

OS    CO 

io  t^  m 

iO 

i*    CO 

«©  1-1 

#• 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

e© 

«© 

s© 

<S© 

tH   CM    O! 

CO    t>    CO    CM 

CO    <N 

i-H               CD 

r-l     CC 

CO    CO    OS 

OHffl 

CO    lO    CO    CO 

I>  o 

t>    O    00 

1>    iC 

So  £ 
■   CO   M 

.    CD       • 

•    CD    CM 

io'on 

■^'    CO    CM    CO 

O    OS    CM 

d  ic 

U5    N    N 

rj<    i-l 

N 

n  io  e% 

i> 

CO    CM 

m  i-i 

t& 

m 

m 

«© 

OS    rH    CM 

OOH(C 
io  i*   tjh   io 

OS    N 

CM            CO 

CM    Tt 

oo  i^: 

00    CO    CO 

CO    ^ 

CO   CO   -^ 

OS   ^ 

00    iO    h 

CM       •       • 

.     Tt<          • 

•   N    ^ 

co  r^  t-h 

t>i    CO    CO    tJ< 

i-I    CM 

os  co  co 

d  io 

Tf     -H     CO 

lO    Tf     H 

-*     i-H 

cm  n  m 

CM 

CM    CO 

«©      T-) 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

S© 

s# 

«# 

9%  ' 

OlON 

CM    CM    ^    iO 

O   i-t 

os         co 

OS    N 

CM    t*    CM 

^.verai 

of 

Distrii 

493 

■o  n  ic 

i-i   CO   !> 

O    lO    OS    CO 

oo'  id  i-J  co 

CM    CO 

th  id 

00    tJ<    t^ 
•    00       • 

00     rH     CM 

00    (M 
00    IC 

CO       .       . 

•     t>      rH 

CO    CO    CO 

8° 

N 

CO    CO    ¥$ 

CD 

CO    CM 

s» 

e@ 

«© 

6%     ' 

d 

03 

a 

1 

<J 

A 

T2 

73     0) 

1 

ft  £ 

3    S 

T3     0) 

a 

c3 

£ 

X 

a 

j2 
> 

a  ° 

a 

£ 

6 

a 
bl 
f- 

B 

rC 
□ 

!SJ 

a 

I 

os 

s 

3 

£ 
a 

c 

111 

o    ^ 

•si 

1 

9 

C 

-t- 

rC 

ft  «« 

"u     s 
■**  .. 

O    o 

c 

1 

a 

Herd  cha 
Building 
Corral  ch 

03      J3 
g     f 

^   §^ 

O        r- 

O    ^j 

11 

O     g     ft 

55    S 
3   c 

8  hJ  fc 

I 

"o    W 

et  cost 
roducti 
ast  per 

et  cost 
roducti 
ost  per 

P 

£ 

o 

h 

0 

£ 

fi 

O 

£ 

a 

Z 

Ph 

c 

go 

s 

p 

W 

W 

M 
a 

S 
o 

H 

a 


cc 

io  b- 

CO    r- 

Th 

o 

o 

o 

o 

b- 

iO 

CO    b- 

CM    00    00   C 

CM    C 

CM    CO   b- 

Is 

• 
oo  cc 

CO    CO 

CM 

CO  >o 

H   00   CN 

o"  00 
CO   iO 

io  o 

io 

-H    b-    « 

CO 

«© 

CM 

CM 

eo 

CO    r- 

TjH     O     N 

c 

cc 

CO  cc 
o  oc 

CM    CO   C 

O  b- 

Is 

o  oc 

CO    CM    CM 

fr- 

cc 

• 

•    CO 

os  co' 

iO   b- 

CM*       '   CO 

cc 

CO   CM 

CO    >0   CM 

IO   -^ 

%* 

J^ 

H10« 

CM 

^ 

ee 

CM    ■* 

H     00Tt 

ee 

s 

CO    b- 

OS        >o 

OS    b- 

Is 

CO   o- 

00    CM    Tt 

0C 

t>  cr 

|>   r-*    rH 

•    CD 

O    00 

OS   (M 

oo'  cm'  io  — 

>C 

CO  cc 

CO    CO    CM 

00     Tj< 

■*  c 

co 

b-  cc 

CO    CO   ¥$ 

CM 

«©  I- 

* 

m 

s» 

oo  o 

IO   "*    iO   CC 

c 

eo  c 

CO    CC 

eo   ^  a 

CM    CM 

CO   w 

00     Tf 

M    O    N    N 

a 

O   CO   10 

• 

. 

•  b- 

CO    CM 

CO    ■*'    CO 

>G 

CM    0C 

rj(   N    h 

O   CO 

IO    b> 

"* 

■*    Tf 

OS   CO   e^ 

CO 

ee 

* 

t& 

6© 

co  w. 

o  -tf  i>  ": 

oc 

CM  tr. 

b-          b- 

eo  co 

CO  ^ 

CO  c 

oonic 

cc 

O    CM 

N   00   N 

• 

•    OS 

i-H   o" 

i-l   cm 

CO           CO 

iO    iO 

OS   •*   CC 

i-i    00 

b-  o 

b- 

co  rt<  m 

CM 

e© 

«© 

6© 

00    CC 

CO   00    i- 

-+ 

CN 

iO  c 

IO          CC 

CO  o 

Is 

00    i- 

00  b-   b-   cc 

OC 

IO  oc 

b-   CO   ■<* 

. 

• 

•  »o 

CO    b- 

IO  cc 

IM*   b-'   CO    i- 

CO   rf 

i-H    CO    CM 

00    IO 

CO  oc 

CO 

CO   CO   9! 

CM 

«© 

s 

CO 

io  cc 

TH     rH     OS    0C 

f-i 

o  c 

O          CM 

T*     O. 

S5« 

CO    "~ 

CM    OC 

OS  co  tj- 

"t 

cc 

CO   o 

b»    OS   b- 

• 

•    IO 

i-I    CO 

"*    CC 

* 

CM 

ri   b- 

OS 

CO    b-    CM 

co  co  m 

r 

ft©  1-1 

» 

€© 

io  oc 

O    IN    OS    C 

O 

CO   c 

CO           CM 

iO  o. 

CO    ^ 

oo  cc 

N   H    M    - 

cc 

CM    — 

i-i   »o  b- 

_'   "*    „ 

CO  o 

rji    O 

(d  n  ^t 

r- 

>* 

00  cc 

O    f-i   CM 

CO    CO 

»*" 

rj< 

TtH  lo  m 

CM 

«© 

e© 

CO  c 

CO    OS    CM 

<c 

O   b- 

CO         cc 

OS    OS 

CO  «■ 

CM    £ 

CO   w 

o  c 

<jiN(ON 

oc 

O    CC 

co  os  ir. 

• 

•  °  * 

r>!  co" 

os  ic 

CM*    OS    CM 

rH    O 

i-i   O    CM 

b-    IO 

u* 

o  "#  m 

s» 

€© 

IO    b- 

CM    OS    CO    b- 

CM 

00   o 

OS          CM 

b-    00 

CM    O 

Tt<    OS    OS    C 

t}i 

00  c 

co  cr- 

• 

•   O 

IO  o 

b-   ic 

iO   d   CM 

1H 

CM 

IO    ■>* 

i-l    IO    CM 

00    b. 

-*     IT. 

CM 

CO 

co  i*  e^ 

i-H 

«© 

s 

m 

CM    CC 

iO    OS    CM 

cr 

-t 

■*     r- 

w    ~  '" 

OS  o 

2  cr 

co  — 

CO    OS    CO    O 

lO  cc 

CM    CO    CC 

• 

•    IO 

CM    -^ 

eo  « 

b-'    IC 

2  d  ^ 

CM 

00  cc 

CM    .-H    CM 

CD    iO 

CO    b> 

<# 

■*tO« 

CM 

s© 

«© 

€© 

IN    0C 

b-    OS    00    — 

c- 

Tf(     CC 

00         o 

CM    CM 

2  « 

oo  o 

IO    CM    1>    r- 

L" 

^H     IO 

IO   CO   cc 

• 

•  ^    , 

b-    CD 

CO    « 

rfi   iO 

CO    i-J    CM 

- 

r-i    -^ 

CO    00    CM 

o  >o 

■*    CC 

CM 

H     ^     « 

CM 

e© 

«# 

e% 

"S    ts 

CO    rf 

OS    IO    CM 

£N 

o 

b-    CC 

b-    IO 

«3    CC 

b-'  »c 

ION    00    C 
IO    Tt<    CO    i- 

cc 

CN 

CM    iO 

b-    00    rf 
IO    CO    CM 

00     Tf< 

rJH    IO 

Tt<  b- 

-* 

CO    KJ    9! 

CM 

«J  Q 

e© 

e© 

m 

-2 
d 

CO 

es 

E*f 

-r 

1 

a. 

til 

"o 

c 

a 

^3 

a 

3  s 

9 

&  & 

3  -*j 

O      OJ 

&«g 

C 

i  « 

ir 

-n*  £ 

§ 

I 

£ 

a 

*  2 

OJ    ^ 

</ 

£ 

a 
5 

e 

I 

S 

J  « 

c 

<r 

C 

o 

|   o 

°  1 

0 

I 

i 

u    »  £ 

,  -c 

I 'J 

o   §i 

§a 

55  £ 

•a  c 

1  8, 

+j    ci    a 

i 

c 

C 

c 

So  _cr 

8  %  c 

«  s  s 

■g    as 

i,          a    ft 

-a  +3 
2  § 

0 

V 

O 

h 

C 

|2| 

p^ 

C 

Ph 

O 

Bulletin  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         33 

of  producing  whole  milk  ranged  in  the  different  herds  from  $1.50  to 
$3.77  per  100  pounds,  and  from  31.2  cents  to  80.3  cents  per  pound 
of  butt  erf  at. 

In  the  Areata  district  costs  of  producing  whole  milk  were  below 
the  average  of  the  district  on  7  dairies  of  the  13,  while  the  cost  of 
producing  butterfat  was  at  or  below  the  average  of  the  district  on  5 
dairies.  In  the  Orick-Requa  district  5  dairies  produced  whole  milk 
at  a  cost  below  the  district  average,  while  4  dairies  produced  butterfat 
at  less  than  the  district  average  cost. 


2.    MARIN-SONOMA    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Nineteen  dairies  in  the  western  parts  of  Marin  and  Sonoma 
counties  consistently  furnished  data  for  an  entire  year,  seven  of  these 
reports  covering  the  period  from  November  1,  1921,  to  October  31, 
1922,  the  balance  from  January  1  to  December  31,  1922.  These 
19  were  located  as  follows:  2  at  Fallon,  2  at  Tomales,  1  at  Valley 
Ford,  2  at  Bloomneld,  6  at  Bodega,  1  at  Freestone,  2  at  Two  Rock, 
and  3  at  Petaluma.  The  size  of  the  ranches  utilized  primarily  for 
dairying  ranged  from  100  to  1700  acres,  with  12  of  the  19  ranging 
from  210  to  599  acres.  Two  ranches  were  under  200  acres  in  size, 
and  4  over  600  acres.  The  holdings  consisted  of  open  rolling  hills, 
utilized  as  natural  grass  pasture  during  the  times  of  the  year  when 
the  rains  provided  a  satisfactory  growth,  with  some  areas  plowed  and 
seeded  to  grain  for  hay.  Oats  largely  predominated  in  the  seeding, 
although  some  barley,  and  some  vetch  mixed  with  oats  were  utilized. 
The  amount  of  land  used  for  farmed  crops  varied  with  the  different 
ranches,  but  for  the  total  number  amounted  to  close  to  25  per  cent. 
In  feeding  the  milking  herd,  sole  use  of  pasture  was  the  rule  whenever 
good  pasture  was  available.  Pasture  was  commonly  utilized  during 
the  months  of  April,  May,  June,  and  July.  One  ranch  reported  use 
of  pasture  in  March,  and  seven  secured  pasturage  in  August  and  Sep- 
tember. When  on  full  pasture  cows  received  no  other  feed.  During 
the  remainder  of  the  year  they  were  fed  hay  and  concentrates  with 
some  silage,  carrots,  potatoes  and  pumpkins.  Oat  hay  comprised  the 
major  portion  but  there  was  also  some  use  of  alfalfa,  imported  from 
other  sections,  barley  hay,  and  a  small  amount  of  volunteer  and  of 
oats  and  vetch  hays.  Concentrates  consisted  of  cottonseed  meal,  coco- 
nut meal,  linseed  meal,  barley,  molasses,  wheat,  oil  cake,  dried  beet 
pulp,  middlings,  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  arid  screenings.     The  common 


34  UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION 

practice  eliminated  the  concentrates  and  hay  when  pasturage  is 
available,  only  one  dairy  reporting  the  supplementing  of  the  pasture 
at  all  times  with  some  additional  feed.  A  total  of  5436  acres  was 
utilized  as  pasture  by  these  nineteen  dairies,  or  76  per  cent  of  the 
gross  available  acreage,  the  balance  being  retained  for  growing  young 
stock  and  for  horses.  The  average  feed  value  amounted  to  $2.68  per 
acre  per  year. 

The  size  of  herds  in  these  19  dairies  ranged  from  an  average  for 
the  year  of  22  cows  and  1  bull  to  128  cows  and  2  bulls  for  the  year 
with  a  third  bull  for  six  months.  Three  dairies  had  30  cows  or  less, 
5  from  31  to  40,  4  from  41  to  50,  1  from  51  to  60,  4  from  61  to  70, 
1  from  81  to  90,  and  1  had  128.  The  average  for  all  the  dairies  was 
52  cows  and  1%  bulls.  The  total  number  of  cows  in  the  district  in- 
cluded in  this  survey  was  996  and  the  bulls  numbered  27. 

Of  breeds,  6  dairies  were  running  Jerseys;  3  Durham;  2  each 
Holstein,  mixed  Durham  and  Holstein,  and  scrubs;  1  each  Jersey, 
Durham,  and  Holstein,  Jersey  and  Durham,  and  Jersey  and  Guernsey. 
There  were  3  purebred  registered  Jersey  cows  reported,  and  14  dairies 
using  purebred  bulls,  several  of  them  registered,  so  that  of  the  27 
bulls  in  use  on  all  dairies  18  were  considered  to  be  of  good  breeding. 
These  18  bulls  were  made  up  of  11  Jerseys,  6  Guernseys,  and  but  a 
single  Holstein. 

The  cows  were  uniformly  bred  to  calf  from  October  to  early 
spring.  The  bulk  of  the  calves  were  born  during  October,  November, 
and  December.  Some  calving  continued  at  intervals  until  as  late  as 
May,  although  the  number  born  in  February  or  later  was  small. 

Milking  was  done  at  12-hour  intervals,  usually  at  5  a.m.  and  5  p.m., 
although  some  schedule  their  milking  for  either  4  or  4:30.  Nine  of 
the  dairies  were  using  milking  machines,  the  remainder  relied  on  hand 
milking. 

Seventeen  of  the  nineteen  dairymen  gave  their  nationality  as 
Americans,  although  in  some  cases  obviously  of  foreign  parentage  or 
naturalized.  One  was  Swiss  and  the  other  Italian.  The  milkers  were 
reported  as  being  mainly  ximericans,  with  a  sprinkling  of  Swiss, 
Italian,  and  Spanish. 

Dairymen  in  this  section  were  primarily  interested  in  the  produc- 
tion of  butterfat,  sales  of  whole  milk  being  negligible  and  then  prin- 
cipally for  cheese-making  purposes.  The  milk  was  separated  at  the 
ranch  and  then  sent  to  the  creamery  either  under  contract  hauling  or 
by  ranch  conveyance.  During  the  year  under  observation  sales  were 
made  by  these  dairymen  to  the  Petaluma  Cooperative  Creamery,  the 


Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT        35 


Fig.  5. — Typical  grass  pastures — bur  clover,  wild  oats,  alfilaria  and  rye  grass — 
Marin  and  Sonoma  counties.  Principal  dairy  feed  during  April  to  July  inclusive. 
1.  Near  Two  Rocks.    2.  Near  Bodega.    3  and  4.  Near  Valley  Ford. 


36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Bodega  Cooperative  Creamery,  the  Cremo  Milk  Company,  and  to  the 
Western  Refrigerating  Company.  Resulting  skimmilk  was  used  for 
calf,  chicken,  and  hog  feeding.  Of  the  nineteen  operators  seven  were 
tenants  and  twelve  were  owners  of  the  dairies  that  they  were  handling. 

Summary  of  Costs 

In  the  table  immediately  following  are  set  forth  the  findings  result- 
ing from  the  assembling  of  the  various  data  worked  out  in  detail  for 
each  of  the  nineteen  dairies  covered  in  this  district. 


TABLE  5 
Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Marin  and  Sonoma  Counties 

Number  of  dairies 19 

Number  of  cows 996 

Number  of  bulls 27 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  102,849  hours 124,786.61 

Man — management 2,086.03 

Horse,  7,500  hours 1,187.54 

Truck  and  automobile,  16,104  miles 2,007.80 

Liability  insurance  of  workmen 25.00 

Total  labor  cost $30,092.98 

Feed 

Pasture,  5436  acres $14,602.17 

Hay,  1,447.35  tons 22,968.43 

Concentrates,  756.23  tons 24,820.69 

Silage,  245.25  tons 1,643.50 

Roots  and  tubers,  79  tons 603.00 

Total  feed  cost .    64,637.79 

Hauling  milk  and  cream 827.56 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 3,531.72 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $6,375  @  6% 382.50 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle,  $71,148.41 

@6% $4,268.90 

Mortality:  30  cows,  $1,735;  1  bull,  $500 2,235.00 

Depreciation 2,762.50 

Taxes 869.15 

Insurance 12. 50 

Total  herd  charge 10,148.05 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  pR0DUClNG  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         37 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $51,443.50  @  6%  3,086.61 

Depreciation 2,072.00 

Upkeep 986.68 

Taxes 438.14 

Insurance 166.08 

Total  buildings  charge 6,749.51 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes 171.75 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $3,570 

@6% 214.20 

Depreciation  of  improvements 348.50 

Upkeep 83.71 

Total  corral  charge 818.16 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $12,881.46  @  6%         $772.88 

Depreciation 2,648.67 

Upkeep 468.70 

Taxes 67.40 

Insurance 7.50 

Total  equipment  charge $3,965.15 

Total  gross  cost $121,153.42 

Credits 

Manure $1,660.00 

Calves,  771 2,772.00 

Skimmilk,  42,891  hundredweight  @  25c...  10,722.93 

Total  credits $15,154.93 

Net  cost  of  butterfat $105,998.49 

Total  production  of  butterfat 215,260.2  pounds 

Average  cost  per  pound  of  butterfat 49.2  cents 

Average  annual  production  per  cow 216.1  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  value  of  the  cows  and  bulls,  according  to  the  assessment  figures,  amounted 
to  $22,380,  and  the  dairy  fixtures  to  $1860.  Based  on  an  arbitrary  pro-rating  of 
the  building  assessment,  varying  from  15  to  70  per  cent  of  the  total  building 
assessment,  the  dairy  buildings  assessment  amounted  to  $11,357.  The  tax  rate 
varied  with  the  locality  from  $3.11  to  $5.44  per  $100  of  assessed  values.  The 
average  tax  rate  for  the  district  was  $3.84. 

Of  the  19  dairymen,  11  carried  building  insurance,  2  insurance  of  bulls,  and 
1  each  insurance  of  dairy  equipment  and  employer 's  liability  insurance. 

A  total  of  102,849  hours  of  manual  labor,  costing  $24,786.61,  was  expended 
during  the  year  in  the  conducting  of  these  nineteen  dairies.  This  amounted  to  an 
average  of  24.1  cents  per  hour.  Management  was  determined  by  finding  the 
difference  between  the  operators'  estimates  of  their  own  time  and  the  rate  charged 
for  manual  labor,  making  due  allowance  for  manual  work  contributed  by  them. 
Management  thus  amounted  to  $2,086.03,  or  8.4  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor 
charge. 


38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Twelve  of  the  nineteen  dairies  used  horses  in  carrying  on  the  work,  the  remain- 
ing number  not  deeming  enough  horse  labor  used  to  warrant  its  inclusion.  The 
cost  per  hour  for  horse  labor  ranged  from  8.4  to  40.7  cents  per  hour,  with  an 
average  per  hour  horse  cost  of  15.8  cents.  Seven  thousand  five  hundred  hours  of 
horse  labor  comprised  the  total  use  on  the  dozen  dairies  utilizing  horse  power. 

Likewise  12  of  the  nineteen  dairies  used  either  trucks  or  automobiles  in  con- 
nection with  the  operation  of  the  dairies.  The  mileage  cost  varied  from  7.1  to 
47.2  cents,  with  an  average  of  12.5  cents.  These  automobiles  and  trucks  traveled 
a  total  of  16,104  miles  for  the  dairies. 

The  pasturage  cost  averaged  $768.53  per  dairy,  or  amounted  to  $2.62  an  acre 
a  year  or  $14.66  per  cow  per  year.  The  average  costs  per  ton  for  other  feeds 
amounted  to:  Hay  $15.89;  concentrates  $32.94;  roots  and  tubers  $7.63;  silage 
$6.70. 


Fig.  6. — Typical  dairy  building  equipment  of  the  western  Marin-Sonoma  section. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         39 

Eleven  of  the  nineteen  dairies  paid  for  contract  hauling  of  dairy  products, 
the  other  eight  did  all  the  work  themselves. 

Operating  capital  amounted  to  $6375  or  an  average  per  dairy  of  $335. 

Considerable  range  was  found  to  occur  in  the  average  head  values  of  cows 
and  bulls  in  getting  at  the  amount  of  investment  and  of  depreciation.  For  the 
nineteen  dairies  the  range  in  cow  values  based  on  the  averages  of  the  first  and 
second  inventories  was  found  to  be  from  $47.50  to  $100  per  head,  as  compared 
with  a  general  average  of  $66.09.  Bull  values  ranged  from  a  low  value  of  $30 
for  one  bull  to  a  high  value  of  $500  for  another  individual.  The  average  for  all 
bulls  was  $164.12.  Of  the  total  investment  in  cows  and  bulls  the  cow  values  made 
up  84  per  cent,  the  bulls  the  remaining  16  per  cent. 

Of  the  19  dairies,  8  reported  cow  appreciation  and  11  depreciation;  3  reported 
bull  appreciation.     Net  depreciation  for  the  district  totaled  $2762.50. 


Fig.  6. —  (Continued.) 


40  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Herd  mortality  consisted  of  30  head  of  cows  valued  at  $1735,  or  $57.85  per 
head.  These  cows,  compared  with  the  average  value  of  the  total  number,  were 
therefore  valued  at  87  per  cent  of  the  herd  average.  Only  one  bull  died,  and  his 
value  was  placed  at  $500.  This  was  the  highest  valued  bull  of  the  twenty-seven 
reported  for  this  district. 

The  investment  in  dairy  buildings  ranged  from  $1267.50  to  $9965.  The  major- 
ity of  the  dairies,  however,  including  all  but  five,  had  an  investment  of  less  than 
$3000  each.  Of  the  five  excepted  only  a  single  dairy  had  more  than  $5000  invested, 
this  being  the  dairy  already  indicated  as  highest  in  dairy  building  equipment,  viz., 
$9965;     The  average  for  the  dairies  studied  was  $2708. 

Being  an  old  dairy  section  many  of  the  buildings  are  of  long  standing,  and 
were  constructed  during  times  of  lumber  and  labor  costs  below  those  of  present 
times.  In  numbers  of  structures  the  19  dairies  covered  by  this  study  possessed  19 
cowbarns,  19  milk  houses,  or  1  cowbarn  and  1  milk  house  for  each  dairy,  3  bull 
barns,  10  silos  on  6  ranches  (4  having  2  silos  each),  and  3  granaries.  A  dwelling 
used  partly  for  dairy  workers  and  a  bunkhouse  were  also  found,  their  use,  however, 
being  charged  for  determining  the  rate  for  man  labor. 

Fourteen  dairies  encountered  building  upkeep  expense  during  the  year,  ranging 
from  $12  to  $145.25,  the  total  for  all  being  as  set  forth  in  table  5.  Upkeep 
amounted  to  slightly  less  than  2  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

Land  used  for  corrals  and  building  sites,  in  connection  with  the  dairies 
amounted  to  52%  acres,  with  a  range  of  from  one-fourth  to  seven  acres,  having 
an  average  rental  value  of  $3.25  per  acre  per  year,  and  totalling  $171.75  for  the 
nineteen  dairies.  Investment  in  improvements  such  as  corral  fences,  water  troughs, 
and  shelter,  totalled  $3569.65,  ranging  from  $31.75  for  one  dairy  to  $366.50  for 
another.  The  average  investment  in  these  improvements  amounted  to  $198.40. 
The  depreciation  of  these  improvements  figured  from  $3.50  for  one  dairy  to  $45.50 
for  a  second,  with  an  average  figure  of  $18.34.  Five  dairymen  spent  money  on 
corral  upkeep,  ranging  from  $4.00  to  $28.00.  Corral  upkeep  amounted  to  slightly 
less  than  2%  per  cent  of  the  investment  in  corrals. 

The  dairy  equipment  investments  on  the  individual  dairies  varied  from  a  low 
of  $157.40  to  a  high  of  $2092,  with  a  general  average  of  $677.97.  Seven  dairies 
had  an  investment  of  less  than  $500,  9  of  from  $500  to  $1000,  and  2  of  more  than 
$1000. 

Dairying  equipment"  used  by  these  19  dairies  involved  10  milking  machines,  23 
separators,  73  buckets,  17  gasoline  engines,  205  milk  cans,  11  milk  vats,  19  milk 
strainers,  31  lanterns,  5  feed  cutters,  42  shovels,  38  brooms,  13  wheelbarrows,  7 
boilers,  53  forks,  1  feed  mixer,  1  scales,  1  manure  carrier,  2  testing  outfits,  12 
cowbells,  1  sterilizer,  and  miscellaneous  rope,  shafting,  pulleys,  belts,  hose,  milk 
stools,  and  brushes.  The  total  investment  in  dairying  equipment  amounted  to 
$12,881.46,  which  at  6  per  cent,  gave  an  interest  charge  of  $772.88.  Total  depre- 
ciation of  dairying  equipment  amounted  to, $2648.67,  equivalent  to  about  20  per 
cent  of  the  investment. 

Seventeen  dairies  found  it  necessary  to  renew,  repair,  or  otherwise  keep  up 
their  dairying  eqripment.  Sums  spent  ranged  from  a  low  of  $4.50  to  a  high  of 
$122.55,  the  total  spent  being  $468.70.  Upkeep  amounted  to  3.6  per  cent  of  the 
total  investment  in  dairy  equipment. 

Miscellaneous  returns  to  the  dairies,  other  than  sales  of  milk,  butterfat,  or 
credits  for  calves,  manure  and  skimmilk,  consisted  of  empty  sacks  and  calf  hides. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       41 

Only  eight  dairies  reported  such  items  and.  the  total  return  was  small,  being  but 
$95.95  for  all  dairies. 

Credit  for  calves  dropped  ranged  from  $1  to  $12.50  per  head  of  all  calves 
passing  the  colostrum  period.  Calves  saved  for  raising  were  priced  relatively  high, 
calves  to  be  vealed  were  not  valued  very  high.  The  breed  of  the  cows  made  some 
difference,  a  smaller  value  attaching  to  calves  from  Jerseys  and  Guernseys  than 
to  those  of  Holstein  and  Durham,  when  vealing  was  to  be  the  fate  of  the  calves. 
The  average  value  of  the  calves  amounted  to  $3.71. 

Credit  for  manure  amounted  to  a  total  of  $1660  for  the  district.  Seventeen 
dairymen  deemed  the  manure  of  value  to  them,  two  considered  it  an  expense. 
Tenants  placed  a  lower  rate  than  did  owners.  As  practically  no  sales  of  manure 
were  made  the  figures  given  reflect  the  dairymen's  estimate  of  the  product  solely 
for  use  upon  their  own  holdings.  Most  dairymen  could  not  place  a  value  figure 
for  droppings  occurring  upon  fields,  their  estimates  being  confined  to  a  con- 
sideration of  corral  scrappings  only. 

In  the  summary  table,  total  production  of  butterfat  is  reported.  Of  the  total 
production — 215,260.2  pounds — 199,157  pounds  were  sold,  the  balance  being  used 
on  the  dairy.  Hence  93  per  cent  of  the  total  production  went  as  sales,  while  the 
remaining  7  per  cent  was  consumed  at  the  dairy.  In  terms  of  whole  milk  this 
amounted  to  a  total  production  of  567,786  gallons,  testing  from  3.6  to  5.5  per  cent 
butterfat,  or  an  average  of  4.4  per  cent. 

The  total  production  of  whole  milk  and  cream  resulted  in  42,891  hundredweight 
of  skimmilk  available  for  ranch  and  home  use.  This  was  valued  at  an  average 
of  25  cents  per  hundred  by  the  dairymen,  and  amounted  to  $10,722.93.  The  range 
in  values  was  from  15  to  35  cents  a  hundred,  the  value  depending  upon  the  use 
made  of  it.  For  feeding  chickens  the  value  was  stated  to  be  greater  than  if 
utilized  for  the  feeding  of  calves  or  hogs. 

The  average  production  per  cow,  for  the  996  involved  in  the  study,  amounted 
to  216.1  pounds  of  butterfat.  The  lowest  average  for  a  single  dairy  was  115.3 
pounds,  the  highest  367.8  pounds  per  cow  per  year.  Eleven  dairies  of  the  19  were 
above  the  average,  8  below.  For  the  7  large  dairies,  that  is  dairies  having  59 
cows  or  more,  the  average  production  was  203.2  pounds  of  butterfat  to  the  eow 
a  year:  for  the  12  smaller  dairies  with  50  cows  or  less,  the  average  was  232  pounds 
of  butterfat. 

According  to  receipts  obtained  by  the  dairymen  who  sold  butterfat  in  cream, 
the  average  net  price  received  during  the  year  from  actual  sales  was  43.8  cents 
per  pound.  Whole  milk  was  not  sold  in  sufficient  quantities  to  permit  the  drawing 
of  satisfactory  deductions  concerning  prices  paid. 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

The  summary  table  of  the  district  presents  the  average  cost  for 
the  nineteen  dairies  covered  by  the  study.  Much  variation,  however, 
exists  from  this  normal,  there  being  a  goodly  sprinkling  of  dairies 
which  are  either  above  or  below  the  average.  This  is  shown  in  table  6 
which  sets  forth  the  individual  findings  for  each  of  the  dairies  studied 
in  this  district.  There  can  be  seen  the  variations  both  in  cost  per 
pound  for  all  butterfat  produced  by  each  dairy  and  as  well  the  vari- 


•1 
1  i 

g   a 

3  a 

o 


"5  ■*  ic  o  o  o  « 

3                  O           'd 

<             co 

l> 

OS           ID 

3$ 

©  i>  .-<  o  co  t~  c 

3                      O             O 

3                      O 

CC 

>                   CO 

ID 

5               t^  <M°  id  00  ^      '  c 

J           .«-!       « 

3                      ■*' 

i> 

CO 
CO           CO 

CN 

N    K3            i-H 

o 

OS             i-H 

»D 

«© 

€©   ? 

^  ^-1 

€© 

N    OO)    W    OIN" 

3                   ID           C 

3                    ID 

Tf*                O 

CN    «* 

CO    tJH    rt    00    b-    CN    If 
3                   Tt<    CO    CO    CO    l>    i-l    If 

3                   00           O 
3                   <*'           i- 

1                   CO 

J"           co' 

Ci 

ID 

i-I           CO 

O 
CO 

§N           - 

^   «° 

^   «° 

_    ID           CM 

ID 

«©    i- 

6©   ^H 

«©    rH 

00   00   N    h    ©    tO    if 

3                   OS           CX 

3                        rH 

V 

3                   CO          -t^ 

"5   2 
IN    - 

)                   O    <#    H    NN    lOb 
J                   00    lO    CO    t>    l>       '    "d 

os        i- 
cd        c 

1                  CO 
3                   CO* 

c 
c 

CO           OS 

ID 
CM* 

CN    CO 

O           i-l 

»D 

«© 

e©  ^ 

Gfc   -H 

€©    rH 

U)   Tf    00    lO    K>   (O    O 

>                CM          c 

3                   CM 

t> 

<D           CO 

"*     r- 

CN    ^ 

H    OlffllN    M(Or 

CM           O 

CO 

o 

o 

CN 

1                      rH    d    t>i    CN    >D    i-H    CN 

!>           0( 

)'                   CO 

o 

d      55 

■*' 

CO    »D             rH 

o 

OS           CM 

TlH 

m 

e©  ^ 

&     r-l 

«© 

I>    ID    CO    ID    Tt<    CO    CC 

3                H         ot 

3                   CO 

o 

rH               ,H 

00  a 
CN    ^ 

t»  m  ioo  aoo  if 

i              o 

<                   00 

o 

CO 

>D 

3                        

<                   ffi    00    (D    00    N           C£ 

3             d        c 

CD 

o 

CM 

TjH             ID 

r^ 

CN    CD           * 

_  w 

<            o 

OS          CM 

CO 

«© 

e©  - 

«©  —1 

6© 

N   N    CO    H    rt    O    C 

co        i> 

os 

1 

>D           00 

10   CN 
CM    ^ 

O     HHH     U3(D    « 
CN     d    CO*     -H     rH     <N     r- 

CO          c 

3                   00 
3                   CM 

if 

3                   t^           CD 

CO 
CO 

ID    CN              CN     rH 

CM 

1                           r-l 

os        co 

>D 

«©  i-i 

e^  cm 

«rt    CM 

«©    rH 

*  oo  ©  m  o  n  ^ 

00            CI 

3                    CM 

c: 

3                      CO             rH 

<N   ^ 

a  O)  n  oi  in  io  c 

i                 00          c* 

I                  *D 

CO 

O 

id  -h  <N  id  co        o 

cm'        o 

d 

-t 

d        co 

d 

CO    CO           i-l 

CM 

_  <*• 

O           CM 

■* 

e© 

m  f 

S©    rH 

«©     rH 

O    ■*    00    O    O    ID    O 
lO   CM    00    ©   N   n    a 



3                b-  r-  CO         00         CN 

os        if 

3                        ^ 

if 

3                          OS                O 

CO    _ 
CN    u 

00           ■- 
CO          rj 

1                        I> 

d 

-t 

ID 

00 
ID          CO 

d 

IM    N           * 

CM 

O           CM 

CO 

G© 

m    y-4 

«©     H 

€©     rH 

rH    CO    00    OS   CM    CM    C 

y-<           t> 

Tjl 

a 

ID           ID 

CN    -, 

"^  cn 
CM   CN 

00   O    00   t>    CO    CO    cc 
N-'    ■*'    d    CO    CO           kf 

rH             If 
00           « 

3                   ID 

3               d 

cr 

00 

00 
b-           »D 

d 

CO    CD           CM 

r^ 

CO 

<N           CM 

Tf 

«© 

^    r-l 

m  h 

€©     rH 

O    ^    N    CO    H    ■*    C 

ID           O 

co 

CM                O 

>D    >D    rH    "tf    t>    O    CC 

O           Ot 

CM 

c 

<N 

CO 

§« 

CO   00    >D    CO    CO   cm'    Cs 

ID           C 

r-l 

c 

rH                CO 

00 

CO    CO 

CN 

i- 

O           CM 

CO 

«© 

6©     T- 

m    rH 

«©     rH 

CO    Oi    CO    CM    t>    CM    Tt 

CO          « 

»D 

If 

O                CO 

^3 

OS    Tt<    CO    lO    <-H    CO    t> 

ID           »f 

OS 

c 

1> 

co 



o  m  Tit  •*  tji        t* 

CN 

ee 

CO 

c 

00                rH 

d 

CO    CO 

o 

OS          <N 

■"* 

«© 

«©   ^ 

^     rH 

«© 

CO    i-h    CO    CD    CM    CM    i- 

00                Tf 

<* 

or 

rH                OS 

CN   » 

t>    OS    CO    00    lO    CO    i- 

CZS         c 

o 

if 

»D 

ID 

00   t^    CO    U5   •*           CM 

CO           CC 

d 

-t 

»D           CM 

>D 

CM    00 

cc 

CO 

rH                CO 

CO 

€© 

«#    IH 

«fc     rH 

«©     rH 

ffl    lO    H    t>    Tf    ■*    ff 

co        cc 

O 

c 

O                >D 

CN  v 

CO   ■*   00   t^   OS   t^   c 

Tj*              CN 

CM 

t- 

ID 

00 



O     CO     "^     rH     OS              -<t 

00           i- 

l> 

c 

CO 

CO           CM 

00 

CM    ID 

o 

OS 

00           <N 

CO 

e© 

«© 

m 

& 

NNON    HOC 

CO          o 

■* 

CC 

00           CO 

fccc 

CN  "£ 

-#  co  -h  »o  cs  •*  o 


c 

CN 

t> 

a 

00 

o 

CO   b-    tjh    CO   O           K 

I> 

ID 

c 

CO           -eH 

d 

CM     ID                      rH 

c 

O 

OS              r-l 

t^ 

«© 

m  1- 

«©    rH 

«© 

Ol    ^    N    CO    M    N    t*- 

o 

CM 

c 

CO           CM 

2  5 

i-H    Tt<    CM    OS   CO    CO    t> 

CC 

Cf 

CM 

w 

co 

CO 



CO    CO    OS    ID    00           i- 

CM 
if 

CC 

d 

CO 
■*           CM 
CO           CM 

s 

e©  ^        'H 

e©  - 

m    rH 

6©     rH 

OS    CO    00    ^    CO    CM    i- 

CC 

o 

rH 

r> 

OS          t> 

23 

^Honrtdoij 


CN    CO    Tt<    ID    CD           ■>* 

If 

CM 

CO 

ID 

OS 

«D 

CM    •* 

^  * 

^   °° 

l>               rH 

"* 

«© 

e© 

^ 

«© 

CD    rH    CM    rH    CM    -*    CC 

CM 

c 

CM 

If 

t^           CO 

2$ 

co  oo  <-*  r-t  rn  ■*  a 

*o 

t^ 

CN 

TfH 

00 



N    S    CO    CO    to           if 

N 

CC 

8 

CC 

ID 
-*             rH 

CM    tJ<           H 

C 

OS              rH 

CO 

«© 

m  <- 

S©    -H 

«© 

OS    CD    rH    CO    CM    »D    Tt 

CO         c 

CO 

a 

ID           CD 

08  g 

OS    ^ 

rH    ©    ID    CO    CN    l>    O 

ID 

00 

p" 

rjl 



CO 

r(i  o  >o  to  ^         c<- 

ID 

CO 

c 

CO           CO 

cm' 

ON    >D           CM 

O                rH 

CO 

e© 

m   " 

m     rH 

6©     rH 

OS    CO    ID    OS    CM    lO    Cf 

N    CO    fj    ©   H    00    N 

OS         c 

OS 

a 

O               TJH 

»D  C 

OS   P" 

CO          c 

CO 

-t 

OS 

00 

00    OS    CO*    OS    00    CM    CC 

00          t> 

d       o 

^ 

Tt<    CO           CN 

CC 

CO 

rjH           CN 

t^ 

«©  1- 

S©    rH 

«©     rH 

^H    O    CO    OS    00    CM    0C 

t 

f 

OS 

i- 

<N                rH 

fc        ■»»  ce 

N   ©N    HN   00   a 

co 

r- 1 

i- 

TJH 

CM 

r°s? 

co 

©  -*  Tji  d  co       « 

1- 

Tt 

t^ 

c 

CD                rH 

os 

H^       ^ 

«©    rH 

*8      M 

-* 

!  a 

:   ->j 

I 

aJ 

•  «S 

» 

M 

:     hi 

3 

a 

a  ^ 

ts   -2 

o3 

a 
6 

I 

a 

a 

CJ    ,D 

"3      r2 

ll 

Its 

"5 

ai    a;    =3    M   S 

13 

£  > 

-3 

c 

•s 

1 

c 

« 

>  *c 
0 

§ 

8^ 

1 

s 

V     »<              r!      ,, 

.      o  .2  ^    a 

S  W  PQ  O  g 

r/ 
I 

b 

4                              — 1 

'             "o 

1   « 

■        ^     03 
o    M 

-**  ^ 

<n  «*h 

!i 

I 

Ill 

|s° 

£  Ph 

o 

a 

0) 

a 
1 

a 

CO 

o 

c 

& 

o 

w 

H 

0 

£  o 

O 

Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       43 

ation  existing  in  the  different  factors  entering  into  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion. As  will  be  noted,  the  table  sets  forth  the  cost  per  cow  for  the 
various  items  making  up  the  total  cost. 

Dairies  numbered  94-106  inclusive  are  located  in  Marin  County, 
those  numbered  257-281  inclusive  are  in  Sonoma  County. 

Butterfat  production  costs  ranged  from  35.5  cents  to  81.8  cents 
per  pound  in  the  district.  Nine  of  the  19  dairies  produced  at  a  cost 
lower  than  the  district  average  of  49.2  cents,  the  remaining  8  at  a 
cost  above  the  average. 


3.    ALAMEDA-CONTRA    COSTA-SANTA   CLARA   DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Complete  and  satisfactory  records  covering  a  full  year's  business 
were  collected  from  20  dairies  located  in  the  counties  of  Alameda, 
Contra  Costa,  and  Santa  Clara  under  similar  and  comparable  con- 
ditions. Record  taking  was  started  with  32  dairymen  but  12  were 
dropped  for  various  reasons.  These  20  dairies  were  selected  from  a 
rather  wide  territory,  being  located  2  each  at  Pleasanton,  San  Lorenzo, 
Concord,  and  Santa  Clara,  and  1  each  at  Alvarado,  Newark,  San 
Pablo,  Decoto,  Livermore,  San  Leandro,  Byron,  Knightsen,  Oakley, 
Milpitas,  San  Jose,  and  Sunnyvale. 

The  year  covered  by  the  record  taking  ran  from  January  1,  1922, 
on  eight  dairies,  from  February  1,  1922,  on  11  dairies,  and  from 
March  1,  1922,  on  1  dairy. 

Lands  utilized  for  dairying  ranged  in  character  from  low  lying 
swamp  or  marsh  lands  to  rolling  hills  maintained  for  pasture.  Level 
valley  floors  constituted  a  substantial  portion  of  the  holdings,  these 
lands  being  cropped  to  alfalfa  and  to  a  little  grain,  corn,  and  similar 
crops  for  the  dairies.  Some  cropping  was  also  practiced  on  some 
of  the  rolling  hills.  In  size  the  holdings  varied  from  one  dairy  setting 
aside  only  land  enough  for  the  cow  corrals  and  dairy  buildings,  all 
feed  being  purchased  and  brought  to  the  dairy,  to  a  holding  of  1000 
acres.  In  all,  these  20  dairies  utilized  a  total  of  6104  acres.  Four 
of  the  dairies  used  less  than  100  acres  of  land  each,  12  from  100  to 
500  acres,  and  4  from  500  to  1000  acres.  A  few  of  the  dairies  pos- 
sessed lands  maintained  solely  for  pasturing,  but  generally  pasturing 
supplemented  the  raising  of  crops.  Because  of  the  variable  nature 
of  the  pasture,  from  swamp  to  hills  with  a  substantial  amount  of 
pasturing  of  crops,  use  of  pasture  was  reported  in  the  entire  district 
at  all  times  of  the  year.    Pasturing  of  alfalfa  was  confined  to  the  late 


44  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

spring,  summer,  and  early  fall  months,  hill  pastures  gave  best  results 
during  the  spring  months,  while  the  swamp  and  overflow  lands  con- 
tributed pasture  more  or  less  during  the  spring,  summer  and  fall 
months. 

Feeding  practices  varied  greatly  in  this  district  because  topo- 
graphical variations  influenced  the  kinds  of  crops  which  could  be 
grown.  Natural  hill  pasture  for  the  milking  strings  was  reported  by 
three  men,  with  five  more  reporting  similar  pasture  for  dry  cows 
only.  Natural  lowland  and  swamp  pasture  for  the  milking  strings 
was  utilized  by  six  men,  with  one  more  using  such  for  his  dry  cows. 
Six  men  reported  the  use  of  alfalfa  pasture.  Grain  stubble  pasture 
was  utilized  by  three  men. 

Natural  hill  pasture  was  obtained  in  the  fall,  after  the  rains  began, 
and  in  the  late  spring.  The  lowland  and  swamp  pasture  season  ran 
through  most  of  the  year  for  the  dry  cows  and  generally  during  April, 
May  and  part  of  June  for  the  milking  strings.  Alfalfa  was  pastured 
from  April  to  September.  The  greatest  reliance  for  dry  forage  was 
placed  on  alfalfa  hay,  17  of  the  20  dairymen  reporting  its  use.  Volun- 
teer oat  hay  was  used  by  13  men,  chiefly  in  combination  with  alfalfa. 
Oat,  barley  and  grass  hays  were  used  in  small  amounts.  Hay  was 
generally  fed  throughout  the  year,  although  in  some  cases  it  was 
supplanted  for  a  few  months  during  the  summer  by  pasturage  or 
green  feeds.  Eight  of  the  20  dairymen  made  use  of  some  kind  of 
silage,  6  utilizing  corn,  3  oat,  2  alfalfa,  and  1  sunflower.  Several  of 
these  8  men  fed  a  mixture  of  2  or  3  kinds.  Feeding  of  silage  was 
generally  confined  to  the  winter  months.  Two  men  made  use  of  pea 
vines,  2  of  corn  fodder,  and  1  each  used  a  small  amount  of  mangels, 
beet  tops,  beets,  brewers'  grains,  and  spinach. 

Alfalfa  cut  and  fed  green  was  reported  by  8  men.  The  feeding 
of  concentrates  was  generally  practiced  in  the  district.  Twenty  dairy- 
men reported  the  use  of  22  kinds  of  concentrates.  The  general  prac- 
tice was  to  feed  2  or  3  kinds  at  a  time.  During  the  year  a  great 
deal  of  changing  about  from  one  kind  to  another  occurred,  chiefly 
due  to  high  prices  of  certain  of  the  staples.  Although  only  2  or 
3  kinds  were  used  at  a  time,  1  dairyman  reported  the  use  of  8  kinds 
during  the  year,  2  of  6  kinds  and  7  of  4  kinds.  Coconut  meal,  barley, 
and  beet  pulp  were  the  favorite  concentrates,  16  men  using  the  first, 
13  the  second  and  11  the  third.  Six  men  reported  the  use  of  rice 
meal;  8  of  various  mill  feeds;  3  each  of  molasses,  molasses  meal, 
linseed  oil  meal  and  bran;  2  each  of  corn,  alfalfa  meal,  mixed  feed, 
and  cottonseed  meal;  and  1  each  the  use  of  mill  run,  cracked  wheat, 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         45 

chop,  grain  mixture,  shorts  and  molasses  screenings.  Concentrates 
were  fed  by  a  majority  of  these  dairymen  the  year  round,  although 
those  who  had  alfalfa  pasture  or  soiling  crops  temporarily  discon- 
tinued, the  use  of  concentrates  when  these  other  feeds  were  available. 

A  total  of  2782  cows  were  maintained  on  an  average  in  these  20 
dairies  during  the  year  covered  by  the  record  taking.  The  size  of 
the  individual  herds  ranged  from  23  to  334  milking  cows.  Three 
dairies  possessed  less  than  40  cows,  one  containing  23,  the  other  two 
24  head  each.  Six  more  dairies  had  less  than  100  cows,  containing 
respectively  48,  54,  62,  73,  84,  and  92  head  each.  Six  dairies  were 
made  up  of  from  146  to  196  animals,  4  dairies  of  from  211  to  265,  and 
1  of  334  cows.    The  average  of  all  the  herds  amounted  to  139  cows. 

The  Holstein  breed  predominated,  12  of  the  20  herds  being  out- 
standingly Holstein,  while  7  additional  dairies  had  a  generous  pro- 
portion of  Holsteins.  One  herd  consisted  of  Shorthorns,  5  of  Hol- 
steins  and  milking  Shorthorns,  and  1  of  Jerseys  and  Holsteins. 

Seventeen  of  these  20  dairies  possessed  purebred  bulls,  numbering 
38,  of  which  29  were  registered.  Of  these  38  bulls,  2  were  Shorthorns, 
the  remainder  Holsteins.  All  but  2  of  the  17  dairies  possessing  pure- 
bred bulls  had  all  or  a  part  of  their  sire  stock  registered.  A  total 
of  125  registered  cows,  all  Holsteins,  were  reported  from  5  dairies. 

On  the  majority  of  dairies  cows  are  bred  to  freshen  at  all  times, 
although  two  dairymen  practiced  breeding  to  have  cows  freshen  either 
from  July  to  February  or  during  the  winter  months. 

Milking  is  mostly  done  at  12-hour  intervals.  Hours  of  milking 
are  variable,  1  dairyman  milking  at  3  o'clock,  3  dairymen  at  4,  2  at 
4 :30,  3  at  5,  2  at  6  :30,  and  9  at  7  o  'clock.  Milking  machines  were 
in  use  on  six  dairies,  the  others  relying  on  hand  milking. 

America,  Switzerland,  and  Portugal  were  claimed  as  their  mother 
countries  by  the  dairy  operators,  while  the  nationalities  of  the  milkers 
included  Americans,  Swiss,  Germans,  Scotch,  Portuguese,  Italians, 
Hollanders,  Russians,  and  Frenchmen. 

Dairymen  in  this  district  are  concerned  solely  with  the  production 
of  whole  milk.  Occasionally  a  little  separating  is  done  to  provide 
cream  for  retail  trade,  but  in  every  instance  production  of  milk  for 
the  consuming  public  of  the  bay  cities  is  the  goal.  Sales  are  made 
through  a  number  of  channels.  Three  of  the  dairymen  retailed  a 
whole  or  a  large  portion  of  their  output.  Two  or  three  more  sup- 
plied institutions,  especially  hospitals.  Others  sold  their  output 
through  the  Associated  Milk  Producers  of  San  Francisco,  the  Walnut 


46  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Grove  Creamery  of  Oakland,  the  Berkeley  Farm  Creamery,  the  Gor- 
dan  Creamery  of  Berkeley,  the  Central  Shuey  Creamery,  the  High- 
land Farm  dairy,  the  East  Bay  Milk  Producers  Association,  the  Fen- 
ton  Creamery  Company  of  Oakland,  and  others. 

The  personnel  of  the  operators  of  these  20  dairies  included  13 
owners,  4  superintendents,  and  3  tenants. 

Summary  of  Costs 

The  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  on  20  dairies  supplying  the  bay 
region  with  milk  and  cream  is  summarized  in  the  following  table,  all 
items  entering  into  the  cost  of  production  being  set  forth  in  sufficient 
detail  to  provide  a  background  for  a  better  understanding  of  the 
expenses  incurred  by  these  dairymen  in  producing  dairy  products 
under  conditions  as  they  exist  in  Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  and  Santa 
Clara  counties. 

TABLE  7 

Cost  of  Milk  Production  Survey — Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  Santa  Clara 

Counties 

Number  of  dairies 20 

Number  of  cows 2782 

Number  of  bulls 63 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  343,252  hours $131,208.60 

Man — management 27,906.00 

Horse,  66,677  hours 5,331.73 

Truck  and  automobile,  96,585  miles 7,390.70 

Insurance 1,079.11 

Gross  labor  cost $172,916.14 

Credits 

Net  cost  of  labor $172,916.14 

Feed 

Pasture $34,662.20 

Hay,  8159.95  tons 118,005.26 

Concentrates,  2,704.77  tons 76,049.08 

Silage,  1,699  tons 8,178.16 

Green  feed,  9,563  tons 29,618.69 

Miscellaneous,  313  tons 1,115.60 

Insurance 265.00 

Total  feed  cost 267,893.99 

Hauling  milk 41,604.55 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 12,860.49 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $.39,340  @  6% 2,360.40 


Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT        47 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle,  $289,800.80 

@6% 17,388.08 

Depreciation 15,023.70 

Mortality:  123  cows,  $10,980.62;  2  bulls,  $150 11,130.62 

Taxes 2,671.38 

Insurance 50.00 


Gross  herd  charge $46,263.78 

Credits  and  appreciation 3,074.00 


Net  herd  charge 43,189.78 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $213,082.19 

@6% $12,784.93 

Depreciation 8,878.23      " 

Upkeep 1,883.32 

Taxes 1,087.56 

Insurance 859.99 


Total  buildings  charge , 25,494.03 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes 3,209.00 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $43,927.09  2,635.63 

Depreciation  of  improvements 3,068.08 

Upkeep 69.90 

Total  corral  charge 8,982.61 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $31,764. 16 $1,905.84 

Depreciation 8,104.97 

Upkeep 3,413.07 

Taxes 215.80 

Insurance 


Total  equipment  charge 13,639.68 

Total  gross  cost 588,941.67 

Credits 

Calves,  1726 $10,896.85 

Manure 11,857.65 


Total  credits $22,754.50 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $566,187.17 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 19,973,201  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2.83 

Total  production  in  gallons  of  whole  milk 2,322,466  gallons 

Cost  per  gallon  of  whole  milk 24.4  cents 

Average  annual  production  per  cow J  7180  pounds 

835  gallons 


48 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Pig.  7. — Dairy  building  equipment  of  Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  Santa  Clara 
counties  where  cost  studies  were  conducted.  The  two  top  and  the  two  bottom 
views  each  apply  to  the  same  dairy. 


Bulletin   372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET   MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         49 


fTftfff irrnmmK 


JHMIMMW 


wm 


Fig.  7. —  (Continued.) 


50  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  twenty  herds  under  observation  in  Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  and  Santa  Clara 
counties  were  assessed  for  $97,385.  Dairy  buildings  were  assessed  for  $40,000. 
Dairy  equipment  assessments  amounted  to  $7615.  Tax  rates  per  $100  of  assessed 
values  varied  from  $2.32  to  $3.78.  Total  taxes  paid  amounted  to  $2,671.38  on 
dairy  herds,  $1087.56  on  dairy  buildings,  and  $215.80  on  dairy  equipment. 

Insurance  was  carried  on  buildings  by  18  of  these  20  dairymen,  employers' 
liability  insurance  by  7,  cattle  insurance  by  1,  and  feed  insurance  by  3. 

Manual  labor  used  in  producing  the  dairy  output  on  these  dairies  cost  an  aver- 
age of  38.2  cents  per  hour.  A  management  charge  for  the  time  of  the  operator 
spent  in  administrative  details  amounted  in  all  to  21  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor 
expenditure,  all  dairymen  reporting  time  spent  in  this  way.  Fifteen  of  these  20 
dairies  utilized  horse  labor  in  connection  with  the  work  of  the  dairies.  The  cost 
an  hour  ranged  from  3  cents  to  16.6  cents  an  hour  for  all  work  done,  averaging 
for  the  66,677  hours  spent  on  the  dairies  close  to  8  cents  an  hour. 

Twelve  trucks  and  5  automobiles  were  used  to  some  extent  in  carrying  on  the 
work  of  ten  of  these  dairies.  The  cost  per  mile  for  all  work  done  ranged  from 
2.3  cents  to  16.2  cents  a  mile,  averaging  7.6  cents  a  mile  for  the  total  of  96,585 
miles  that  these  machines  were  used  in  dairy  work. 

Eighteen  of  these  20  dairymen  used  pasturage,  the  cost  per  cow  per  year 
amounting  to  $14.14  for  the  dairies  having  stock  on  pasture.  The  ton  cost  of 
other  feeds  used  on  these  dairies  averaged  for  the  year  under  study:  hay  $14.46; 
concentrates  $28.22;  silage  $4.81;  green  feed  (alfalfa  and  pea  vines)  $3.10;  straw 
$2.33;  mangels  $4.04;   corn  fodder  $4.00;  wet  brewers'  grains  $3.23. 

Fifteen  of  the  twenty  dairies  paid  cash  for  contract  hauling  of  their  dairy 
products,  total  expenditures  amounting  to  $41,604.55.  In  addition  outlays  of 
$12,860.49  for  supplies,  cow  testing,  and  similar  items  were  made  by  all  these 
dairymen.  Moneys  required  as  operating  capital  totaled  $39,340  for  the  twenty 
dairies,  varying  from  $200  to  $5000  for  the  different  dairies. 

The  average  investment  in  milking  herds  for  the  year  that  these  dairies  were 
under  observation  amounted  to  $289,800.80,  of  which  $10,766  was  invested  in 
bulls  and  the  remainder  in  cows.  Bulls  therefore  made  up  3.6  per  cent  of  the 
total  investment  and  cows  96.4  per  cent.  Average  cow  values  of  individual  herds 
varied  from  $75  to  $156  per  head,  and  averaged  close  to  $108  each.  Bulls  were 
valued  at  from  $30  to  $1000,  averaged  about  $171,  with  eight  of  the  63  bulls  in 
the  district  priced  at  $100  or  less,  and  six  valued  at  $300  or  more. 

Cow  values  of  7  of  the  20  herds  appreciated  in  value  during  the  year,  while  13 
depreciated.  Two  herds  showed  appreciation  of  bulls,  while  18  suffered  some  de- 
preciation. Total  net  depreciation  of  cows  amounted  to  $8,065.55,  total  depre- 
ciation of  bulls  to  $3,928.65,  a  total  depreciation  for  the  herds  of  $11,994.20. 

During  the  year  involved  in  the  record  taking  the  mortality  losses  from  the 
milking  herds  on  these  20  dairies  totaled  123  cows  valued  at  $10,980.62  and  2  bulls 
valued  at  $150,  a  total  mortality  loss  of  $11,130.62.  Based  on  the  average  number 
of  cows  maintained  by  these  dairies  this  amounted  to  4.4  per  cent  and  to  3.2 
per  cent  of  the  number  of  bulls.  The  average  value  of  the  cows  dying  amounted 
to  $89.27,  or  a  little  more  than  82  per  cent  of  the  average  value  of  all  cows  main- 
tained in  the  milking  strings. 

Dairy  building  equipment  on  the  20  dairies  studied  in  this  district  consisted 
of  22  milking  barns,  2  dairies  having  2  each,  10  cow  sheds  on  9  dairies,  19  milk- 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         51 

houses,  1  feed  barn,  4  bull  barns,  9  silos  on  0  dairies,  3  granaries,  17  hay  ware- 
houses on  15  dairies,  2  tankhouses,  1  wash  house,  and  2  garages  maintained  for 
the  dairy.  The  investment  in  these  structures  ranged  from  $1175  to  $32,278.37, 
averaging  $9890.12.  The  investment  on  7  dairies  ran  from  $1175  to  $5000,  on 
4  dairies  from  $5000  to  $10,000,  on  5  dairies  from  $10,000  to  $20,000,  and  on  4 
dairies  in  excess  of  $20,000.  Sums  for  upkeep  were  spent  by  fifteen  dairymen, 
varying  in  amounts  from  $2  to  $452.26,  and  totaling  $1883.32.  These  expenditures 
amounted  to  practically  1  per  cent  of  the  investment.  The  depreciation  total  was 
$8878.23,  or  4.5  per  cent  of  the  amount  invested. 

Lands  required  for  corrals  and  dairy  buildings  amounted  to  143  acres,  acreages 
utilized  by  the  different  dairies  varying  from  1  to  30  acres.  This  land  was  given 
a  rental  rate  of  $3209,  or  $22.44  an  acre  a  year.  The  investment  in  improvements 
such  as  corral  fences  and  watering  facilities,  amounted  to  $43,927.09  for  the  20 
dairies,  varying  from  $241.12  to  $11,356.75.  Six  dairymen  made  expenditures  for 
upkeep,  ranging  from  $3.30  to  $35.15  and  totaling  $69.90.  This  is  equivalent  to 
less  than  0.2  of  1  per  cent  of  the  investment.  Depreciation  cf  these  improvements 
amounted  to  $3068.08,  or  close  to  7  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

Dairying  equipment  reported  as  being  in  use  consisted  of  15  milking  machines 
on  7  dairies,  86  milk  cans,  9  pumps  and  engines,  17  wash  vats,  15  milk  coolers, 
19  milk  receiving  tanks,  16  boilers,  37  hay  trucks,  28  feeding  buckets,  11  clipping 
machines,  17  motors,  3  hoppers,  23  wheelbarrows,  8  motors  and  refrigerating 
plants,  1  pasteurizer,  24  feed  mixing-  vats,  2  ice  pans,  3  milk  testing  outfits,  9 
wagons,  131  milk  pails,  6  separators,  44  lanterns,  5  veterinary  outfits,  2  sterilizers, 
and  a  complete  assortment  of  shovels,  brooms,  brushes,  hose,  forks,  and  similar 
minor  items.  Investment  in  dairying  equipment  varied  from  $61.47  to  $5217.91, 
totaled  $31,764.16,  and  averaged  $1588.21.  Nineteen  dairymen  spent  various 
sums  for.  upkeep,  ranging  from  $4  to  $559.32,  and  totaling  $3413.07.  Upkeep 
costs  therefore  amounted  to  10.7  per  cent  of  the  investment  in  such  equipment. 
Depreciation  amounted  to  $8104.16,  or  25.5  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

Miscellaneous  returns  consisted  of  receipts  from  sales  of  sacks  and  of  bull 
service,  the  former  giving  a  credit  of  $678.04,  the  latter  of  $44.50. 

A  total  of  1726  calves  were  reported  as  having  a  value  for  rearing  or  vealing, 
at  the  time  when  the  dam's  milk  became  fit  for  human  consumption,  amounting 
to  $10,896.85,  or  $6.31  a  head.  The  bulk  of  these  calves  were  reported  as  being 
worth  from  $4.50  to  $7.75,  although  13  were  given  a  value  of  $50  a  head. 

Three  dairies  made  sales  of  manure  produced,  while  the  rest  assigned  a  value 
of  the  material  for  ranch  use.  The  total  value  of  the  manure  produced  was  set 
at  $11,857.65,  of  which  $633.65  worth  was  sold. 

Total  production  on  these  20  dairies  amounted  to  19,973,201  pounds  of  whole 
milk,  of  which  92  per  cent  was  sold  and  the  balance  used  at  the  dairies.  In  terms 
of  gallons,  the  common  local  way  of  reporting  yields,  this  amounted  to  2,322,466 
gallons,  of  which  2,137,296  gallons  were  sold. 

The  average  production  for  the  2782  cows  recorded  in  this  study  amounted  to 
7180  pounds  of  whole  milk,  or  835  gallons  per  cow  per  year.  The  lowest  herd 
average  was  4301  pounds,  or  500  gallons  per  cow  annually;  the  highest  9816 
pounds  or  1141  gallons.  Of  the  20  herds,  13  were  below  the  average,  with  7 
contributing  amounts  sufficiently  high  to  maintain  the  figure  of  7180  pounds. 

Based  on  actual  sales  of  whole  milk  made  by  these  20  dairies  during  the  year 
that  the  record  taking  was  under  way,  the  average  net  price  received  amounted 
to  $2.50  per  100  pounds  of  milk,  or  21.6  cents  per  gallon,  delivered  at  the  creamery. 


O   w 

co  « 

3 

1    N    M    Tf    ffi   O 
ICOHtfJNii 

c 
c 

if 

>                   N- 

CO 

OS 

,©2 

o 

OS 
00 

190.77 

7784 

$2.45 

rH 

4    rH    CD    00    00   r« 
00    CM    CM 

H 

CM 

OS    CN 
CM    i- 

rH    OS    00    iO    00   o 

00    CO    Ol   O    lO   OJ 

O   N    M    6    N   N 
rH    CO    CM    CM 

€©     r-t 

rt 

CO 
00 

oo 

<S©   CM 

o 

CM                              CO      1 
00           O                   CM                   rH           o 
OS                      •                   CM               • 

OO                   CO                   00           00 

00  cc 
cm  ir 

(M    r- 

c 
fr- 
et 

CC 

co  ■*  co  io  co 

r«    CM    CO    00    CO 

C 
rt 

OS 

© 
CM 

6©   CM 

o 

rH 
00 

N                                       .OS 

iO           CM                   CO                   C 

rt                             .                        CN 

CM           OS                  CM                  a 

<©£    ^ 

OO    rH    rH    CM    i-h 

H     CM     H 
>    ^H 

CO 
CN 

fr-    rt 
CM    2 
CM    ^ 

00    *    O!    CD    O)   CO 
00    f    O    00    00   CN 

OS    CD    CO    CO    00    id 

CN 

CN 

CC 

i-H 

CD 
«©   <M 

CO 
O 

OC 
ir 

OC 

CC 
«©    <N 

CM 

CO                          t>                           r- 

rt                       .                   rt 
00                   CM                   >- 

OS                   €©                   - 

rH 

. 

CO 

CM 

3* 

os  os  os  rH  i-i  ic 

H    CO    W    CO    ■*    O 

n-  o  «5  oo  co  ■*' 

iO    ffi   N    *     H 

ic 

8 

00 

*©2 

OS 
CO 

CN 
^2 

C\ 

CO 

CO                      N 
CN 
CM                   0C 
«© 

co 
• 

CM 

CN 

«  5 

CO    t>    OS    >-h    iO    iO 
CO    OS    H    00   N    N 

rH     o'     rH     rt     O     CO 

LQ    CO    CO    CM    --I 

If 

c 

iO 

iO 
CD 

e©  cm 

OS 

rt 
OC 

IC 

«©   CN 

iO                   CO                   N 

^               .             a- 

N-                   CO                   CC 
N                   <3© 

I 

00 
CM 

_    N 

«    2 

O    CM    00   O    O    l> 
O    h    l>    CM    OS   CM 

cd    id    rji    CO    CO   CM 

CO    iO    CM    h 

6% 

o 

rt 

CD 
iO 

CO 
CO 

m  -h 

rH 
CO 

CO 

CN 

o 

CN 

CC 

«©  1- 

00 
CM                   00                   0C 
co                   •                u- 
co                tM                 CC 
iO                   «© 

rn' 
CM 

00     rf 
—1     IT 

N    00    O    •*    CO    CO 
00    iO    lO    CO    OS    OS 

O    iO    OS    CO    ^    CN 

CO     O     H     i(     H 

CM 

oc 

rt 

rfi 

CD 

m  cn 

OS 
CO 

CD 
CM 

a 

M 

OC 
«©   CN 

rH 

rt             co             a 

OS                          •                      CV 
rH                      rH                      CC 
lO                      «© 

co 
co 

i-H     CC 

O    CO    CO    CM    CM    OS 

h    CO    COON    ^i 



OJH     O     ^f     O     H 

CO    O    H    CN    H 
6©    —1 

rt 
rt 

-t 

CO 
iO 

CM 

S©   CM 

US 

CC 
O 

oo 

«©   CN 

rt 
lO                    IT 

rH 

O                  0- 

CO                  ^ 

CO 

c 

rH 

d 

CO 

M    'f    N    CO    O    N 
OS   CO   o   »o   rH   00 

rH    OS    OS    "0    00,  rH 
CO    O    CM 

c©  h 

O 
CN 

c 

CO 
N- 

CM 

CO 

m  cm 

OS 
CM 

OS 

rt 

co 

(N 
^   CN 

-t 
C 
N- 

CC 

co 

0^ 

O 
fr- 

00 
CM 

rH    ffi 
~    rt 

i-H    iO    O    00    --I    00 
CO    O    00    00    —1    o 

rt<  os  id  co  os  co 

rt 
OC 

co 

00 

OS 

co 

OC 

O 

C 

»2 

O 
CD                   i- 
00 

N                    CN 
00                    & 

ee 

c 

1- 

00 
00 

CO    CO 

i-H     rH     00    OS    CO     i-H 
rH    Oi    lO    CM    rH    cJS 

CO    00    CO    OS    00    rH 
ON    H    N 

e© 

00 

00 
CM 

o 
m  cm 

<M 

CC 
CC 

ir: 
e©-2 

CC 
rt                        |> 

OS 

O                   CN 

ic: 

CN 
OC 

N- 

• 

oo 

CM 

CM    OC 

H     rH 

•O    O    O    00    OS    CM 
CM    00    N    CO    00    © 

co  i>  id  rH  os  io 

00    CM            CM    CM 

6©     rH 

0C 

c 

rH 

N- 

o 

CO 

00 

S©   CM 

rH 
iO 

CM 

co 

iO 

c 
1> 

«©   CN 

rt 
ir 
0C 
N- 

rH 

co 

co 
o 

CO 

os' 

CM 

O     <* 

■H     CC 

CSNHCONCO 
N    O    OS    00    O    CO 

iO    CM    OS    CD    00    CO 
N    00N    H    h 
«© 

it: 

oo 

00 
rH 

CM 

rf 

e©  cm 

5 

rH' 

'   00 

N- 

CN 
«©   CN 

rt 

rt 

cc 

CC 

co 

rf 

CO 

oo 

iO 

os 

CM 

^3 

O    O    CO    rH    rH    ^h 
O    LO    CM    iO    CM    00 

CM    CD    H    CM    N    CO 

CD    CO            i-H 

«© 

rH 
iC 

CO 
00 

rH' 

^'i2 

8 

CO 

oo 

N- 

rH 
«©    rt 

C 

tr. 

o 
cc 

co 

CN 

oc 

c 

(X 

CO 
00 

^8 

rt    CO   N    O    i-i    CN 
OS    rfi    CO    rt    CO    CO 

00    CM    CM    CM    CO    t^ 

rH     IO              i-H 

e© 

o 

rH 

rH 

rt* 

CO 

«©    i-H 

CO 
OS 

00 
iO 

rH 
CM 

€©     r^ 

c 
c 

5 

rt 

CN 

C^ 

CO 

o- 

iO 

o 

CM 

>* 

b-    CO    CM    iO    00    rH 
i-h    COS    iO    CO    iO    CD 

CD    O    rH    ©    00    CM 

CON            i-h 

S© 

0C 
IM 

co 

rf 

CO 
00 

«©    rt 

CM 

O 

N- 

iC 

rH 

CT 

o 
«©  rt 

CN 

CC 

CN 

oo 
co 

OC 

iO 
CM 

^Ss 

cn  n  n  h/  oo  w 

ifj    CD    IO    N    i)<    00 

rH  co  id  rH  co 

rH      CO 

s© 

co 
>o 

O 

CO 

rf 

CM 

«©    rt 

N- 

rH 

rn' 

co 

00 

CT 

«©    ^1 

c 

co 

rt 

CN 

o 
c 

iC 

O 
rt* 
CM 

CO 

CO    IQ 

CM 

lOHNiON    h 
•h    --H    CO    O    00    rH 

fi    d    CO    IO   N    h 
CD    (N     i-H     i-H 
«©     I-H 

OC 

oo 

CM 

OS 

rH 

CO 

m  cm 

CO 
IO 

CC 
CN 

N- 

<N 

€©   CN 

CN 

rt 
O 

cc 
oc 

IM 
C¥5 

CO 
CN 

a 

co 

rn' 
CM 

N- 
CN    t- 

COOHNCOiO 
CD    00    ©    b-    O    <M 

NN«    WH(    M 
Ot^rt 

CO 
CC 

os 

CM 

co 

00 

«©  rt 

N 

CC 

c 
o 

CC 

iO 

iC 

CN 

CN 

OS 
CM 

CD 

> 

+J    CM 

««     w    OC 

Q    CM 

'O    O    CO    CM    CO    CO 

■-H     CO     rH      IO     rH     CM 

CM    CO    o    id    OS    CO 

CD    OS    CM    i-h 

«© 

O 

os 

rH 

OS 
CO 

C©   CM 

00 
00 

CO 

o 

6©   CM 

c 

0C 
N- 

co 

OC 
CN 

IC 
00 
OC 

rH 

rH 
CM 

C 
> 

•a 
Q 

C 

e 
'c 
c 
53 

CO 

5   c 
8  ^ 

u 

a 

:      :    as      : 
:      :    M     : 

:      :    »2    cu 

|^2  2-32 
|J  1   8   §•  * 
^  w  «  o  W  O 

2       - 

0  «« 

1  V 

CD 

aJ 
0 

5 

a 

"o 

IB     G 

"o  ± 

§1 

h 

-o  -f 

O     (t 

■8-a 

cu  ^3 
■B  "5  1 

g  ^  £ 
o 

bfl 

a 

1 
1 1 

d 
_o 

M 

a  -g 

8  8 
O 

BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         53 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

Table  8  gives  in  detail  the  costs  per  cow  involved  in  the  produc- 
tion of  milk  on  each  of  the  20  dairies  where  cost  studies  were  com- 
pleted for  an  entire  year.  Variation  in  costs  as  between  different 
dairies  and  between  different  sections  is  shown  in  the  data  presented 
below. 

Dairies  numbered  2,  3,  and  from  6  to  14  inclusive  are  in  Alameda 
County,  dairies  numbered  4,  and  16  to  23  inclusive  are  in  Contra 
Costa  County,  while  dairies  numbered  226a  to  230  inclusive  are  in 
Santa  Clara  County. 

The  table  shows  that  the  range  in  the  cost  of  producing  milk  was 
from  a  low  of  $2.13  to  a  high  of  $4.34  a  hundredweight  of  milk.  On 
a  gallon  basis,  the  range  was  from  18.3  to  37.3  cents.  The  district 
average  was  $2.83  per  100  pounds,  or  24.4  cents  a  gallon.  Of  the 
20  dairies,  10  were  producing  at  or  below  the  district  average. 


4.    SACRAMENTO-YOLO    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

The  request  for  a  study  of  the  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  and 
butterfat  had  its  inception  in  Sacramento  and  Yolo  counties.  Co- 
operation in»this  district  was  such  that  41  dairies  supplied  data  in 
such  shape  that  they  could  be  included  in  summing  up  the  year's 
work.  Of  the  number,  20  were  in  Sacramento  County,  18  were  in 
Yolo  County,  while  3  were  in  San  Joaquin  County  but  so  close  to  the 
Sacramento  County  boundary  line  and  so  similar  in  character  that 
they  could  be  included  with  the  Sacramento-Yolo  dairies.  These  41 
dairies  were  distributed  over  a  fairly  extensive  territory,  5  being 
located  at  Elk  Grove;  5  at  Woodland;  5  at  Clarksburg;  3  each  at 
Gait,  Sacramento,  Thornton,  and  Freeport;  2  each  at  Davis,  Esparto, 
Winters,  and  Natomas;  and  1  each  at  Broderick,  Knight's  Landing, 
Franklin,  Madison,  Rio  Linda,  and  Wilton. 

Eight  of  the  records  ran  from  January  1,  1922,  to  January  1, 
1923,  13  for  the  full  year  beginning  from  February  1,  1922,  and  20 
for  the  year  beginning  March  1,  1922. 

These  41  dairies  utilized  9163  acres.  Nine  of  the  41  possessed 
some  land  maintained  solely  as  pasture — swamp,  brush,  hill,  hardpan 
land,  or  overflow.  The  pasture  land  amounted  to  about  2940  acres, 
or  32  per  cent  of  the  total.  The  remainder  of  the  land  consisted  of 
alfalfa  and  grain,  under  irrigation,  and  was  utilized  for  the  pro- 


54  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  8. — Typical  dairy  layouts  of  the  Sacramento-Yolo  district. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       55 


Fig.  8. —  (Continued.) 


56  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

duction  of  crops,  to  be  either  cut  or  fed  off.  The  size  of  the  holdings 
ranged  from  25  to  2219  acres,  but  of  the  total  all  but  two  contained 
400  acres  or  less.  The  most  common  size  ranged  100  acres  or  less. 
The  two  biggest  holdings  were  1700  and  2219  acres  respectively,  with 
1100  and  1385  acres  of  each  in  pasture.  Thirty-two  of  the  total  pos- 
sessed no  pasture  land,  relying  wholly  upon  irrigated  crops  and  pur- 
chased feed.  These  32  possessed  dairy  holdings  averaging  192  acres, 
with  16  containing  80  acres  or  less. 

Alfalfa  is  the  foundation  feed  on  all  these  dairies,  being  fed  as 
hay,  as  pasture,  or  else  cut  green  and  hauled  to  the  cows.  All  dairy- 
men fed  some  alfalfa.  Other  hays  were  of  little  moment.  Four  men 
used  a  little  oat  hay,  and  a  single  dairyman  barley  hay.  The  majority 
of  the  dairymen  fed  alfalfa  hay  the  year  round,  occasionally  skipping 
a  month  or  two.  A  few  fed  for  shorter  periods.  Whenever  alfalfa 
or  other  pasturage  was  available,  the  cows  were  turned  upon  it,  many 
of  the  dairymen  feeding  some 'on  pasture  the  year  round,  with  others 
utilized  pastures  for  shorter  periods.  One  dairyman  fed  a  small 
amount  of  green  Sudan  grass,  while  Sudan  grass  pasture  in  connec- 
tion with  alfalfa  pasture  was  utilized  by  three  dairymen.  Only  two 
dairymen  did  no  pasturing.  Green  alfalfa  or  silage,  or  both,  were  fed 
by  24  dairymen,  green  alfalfa  being  confined  to  the  growing  months, 
with  silage  utilized  during  the  season  when  growing  crops  were  short. 
This  meant  the  feeding  of  green  alfalfa  during  the  late  spring,  sum- 
mer, and  early  fall  months,  and  the  turning  to  silage  for  the  months 
of  October  to  April,  in  one  or  two  cases  starting  a  month  earlier  and 
continuing  two  months  later.  Four  dairymen  made  use  of  roots  such 
as  carrots  and  beets,  and  of  pumpkins.  Two  dairymen  fed  some  bean 
straw  during  the  fall  months.  Feeding  of  concentrates  was  confined 
to  17  of  the  41  dairymen,  and  of  these  only  2  fed  consistently  through- 
out the  year.  The  other  15  confined  grain  feeding  to  a  few  months 
out  of  the  year,  often  to  less  than  3  months,  and  seldom  over  6  months. 
Concentrates  used,  in  order  of  greatest  favor,  were  barley,  beet  pulp, 
rice  by-products,  coconut  meal,  mill  feeds,  bran,  and  scattering  use 
of  alfalfa  meal,  oil  cake,  rolled  oats,  middlings,  molasses  meal,  and 
corn  meal. 

The  number  of  cows  comprising  these  41  herds  totaled  2912  for 
the  year  covered  by  the  study.  Herds  varying  greatly  in  size  were 
represented.  Beginning  with  a  herd  averaging  20  during  the  year, 
there  were  9  herds  averaging  less  than  30  cows  for  the  year,  8  of 
from  31  to  38,  6  of  from  41  to  47,  3  of  51,  54,  and  57,  5  of  from  62 
to  68,  and  1  each  of  73,  79,  82,  104,  153,  178,  179,  and  then  a  jump 
to  377  and  397.  The  average  of  all  the  herds,  excluding  the  last  two, 
amounted  to  53. 


BuLLETir  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         57 

The  Holstein  was  the  only  breed  reported  for  thirty  herds,  one  of 
these  being  made  up  entirely  of  registered  cattle.  Four  herds  were 
reported  of  Holstein  and  Shorthorn,  two  of  Jerseys,  three  of  Hol- 
steins,  Jerseys,  and  Shorthorn,  and  two  of  Holsteins  and  Jerseys. 

Twenty-nine  of  the  dairymen  had  registered  herd  bulls,  totaling 
47  in  number,  while  5  additional  dairymen  were  using  purebred  bulls, 
totaling  5  in  number.  This  gives  a  total  of  82  per  cent  purebred  bulls. 
Of  breeds,  all  but  one  were  Holsteins,  the  exception  being  a  Jersey. 
In  addition  to  the  bulls,  184  registered* Holstein  cows  were  reported 
from  5  herds. 

All  but  two  dairymen  practiced  all-year  round  breeding  in  order 
to  maintain  at  all  times  about  the  same  number  of  milking  cows.  The 
two  exceptions  bred  for  fall  calves. 

Milking  was  done  twice  a  day  at  12-hour  intervals,  most  of  the 
herds  being  milked  between  3  and  5  a.m.,  and  again  at  the  same 
hours  in  the  afternoon.  Two  herds  were  milked  on  the  2:30  hours, 
two  at  6  and  one  at  7.  Six  of  the  dairies  used  milking  machines,  the 
balance  relying  upon  hand  milking. 

Most  of  the  operators  gave  their  nationality  as  American.  Id 
addition,  there  were  four  Swiss,  one  German-American,  and  one  Ital- 
ian reported.  While  the  use  of  American  milkers  was  generally 
reported,  there  was  also  a  sprinkling  of  other  nationalities  such  as 
Swedish,  Swiss,  Italian,  Portuguese,  German,  and  Belgian. 

Production  was  fairly  evenly  divided  between  the  dairymen  pro- 
ducing whole  milk  for  sale  as  such  and  those  separating  and  selling 
the  butter  fat  in  cream.  Of  the  41  dairies  covered  by  this  study,  18 
confined  their  operations  to  the  production  of  whole  milk,  17  to  but- 
terf at  production,  and  6  sold  both  ways.  During  the  year,  sales  were 
made  to  the  Northern  California  Milk  Producers  Association,  to  the 
East  Bay  Creamery,  Grand  Royal  Ice  Cream  Company,  Sacramento 
Valley  Creamery,  Central  Creameries  of  San  Francisco,  Glenn  Dairy, 
Johnson  Dairy  of  Sacramento,  Crystal  Creamery  and  Butter  Com- 
pany of  Sacramento,  and  to  the  Sego  Condensary  at  Gait. 

Twenty  of  the  operators  owned  the  dairies  that  they  were  handling, 
while  fourteen  were  in  possession  as  tenants  of  the  land  and  in  one 
or  two  instances  of  the  cows  as  well. 

Summary  of  Costs 
Table  9,  immediately  following,  shows  the  summarized  costs  of 
producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  on  41  dairies  in  Sacramento  and 
Yolo  counties,  where  year  round  studies  were  conducted.  Sufficient 
detail  has  been  included  to  indicate  the  character  and  the  amounts  of 
the  various  items  entering  into  dairy  production  costs  of  this  section. 


58  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

TABLE  9 
Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Sacramento-Yolo  Counties 

Number  of  dairies 41 

Number  of  cows 2912 

Number  of  bulls 63 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— annual,  366,657  hours $119,297.93 

Man — management 14,938.56 

Horse,  43,933  hours 3,702.32 

Use  of  truck  and  automobile,  45,270  miles 3,519.52 

Liability  insurance : 1,081.00 

Total  labor  cost $142,539.33 

Feed 

Pasture $30,571.79 

Hay,  9806.33  tons 135,466.07 

Concentrates,  681.035  tons 20,818.58 

Silage,  3989.6  tons 23,529.95 

Green  feed,  6,987  tons 23,818.00 

Roots,  2143/6  tons 747.50 

Bean  straw,  30%  tons 137.75 

Insurance 661.40 

Total  feed  cost 235,751.04 

Hauling  milk  and  cream 16,573.96 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 10,290.87 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $26,179  @  6%  ....  1,570.74 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle,  $327,226.58 

@6% 19,633.59 

Mortality:  155  cows,  $14,582;  7  bulls,  $l!,400 15,982.00 

Taxes 3,024.30 

Gross  herd  charge $38,639.89 

Credits  and  appreciation 2,320.99 

Net  herd  charge 36,318.90 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $219,070.00  @ 

6% $13,144.20 

Depreciation 10,654.00 

Upkeep 7,786.38 

Taxes 1,960.63 

Insurance 1,745.01 

Total  buildings  charge "  35,290.22 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         59 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes,  209.1  acres $3,780.75 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $51,346.75 

@6%, 3,080.80 

Depreciation  of  improvements 4,487.50 

Upkeep 1,199.80 

Total  corral  charge 12,548.85 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $15,758.34  @  6%  $945.50 

Depreciation 2,632.72 

Upkeep 4,201.30 

Taxes 200.17 

Insurance 67.22 

Total  equipment  charge 8,046.91 

Total  gross  cost 498,930.82 

Credits 

Calves,  2,534 $16,881.00 

Manure 7,329.00 

Total  credits $24,210.00 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $474,720.82 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 19,261,250  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2.46 

Total  production  of  butterfat 671,202.03  pounds 

Total  cost  of  butterfat  in  cream 

Cost  of  whole  milk $474,720.82 

Credit  for  skimmilk,  175,362.32  hundredweight  @  25  cents  per 

100  pounds 43,840.58 

Cost  of  butterfat  in  cream $430,880.24 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  cream 64.2  cents 

,  f  6614  pounds  of  whole  milk 

Average  annual  prodnct.on  per  eow j  mj.  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  41  herds  covered  in  making  a  year's  study  of  the  cost  of  producing  whole 
milk  and  butterfat  in  Sacramento  and  Yolo  counties  were  assessed  a  total  of 
$84,985  for  taxes.  Dairy  structures  were  assessed  for  $51,418.50,  and  dairy  equip- 
ment for  $4340.  Tax  rates  in  this  district  varied  from  $2.60  to  $5.16  per  $100 
of  assessed  value.  Total  taxes  paid  by  this  group  of  dairymen  amounted  to 
$3,024.30  on  cattle,  $1,960.63  on  dairy  structures,  $200.17  on  dairy  equipment,  and 
$180  on  hay  and  grain. 

Insurance  premiums  were  paid  for  coverage  on  buildings,  employer's  liability, 
dairy  equipment,  and  feed.  Dairy  buildings  were  insured  in  all  but  two  instances. 
Five  dairymen  carried  employer's  liability  insurance,  two  insured  their  dairy 
equipment,  and  seven  carried  feed  insurance. 


60  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

To  produce  the  output  from  these  41  dairies  necessitated  the  use  of  manual 
labor  to  the  amount  of  366,657  hours,  at  an  average  cost  of  32.5  cents  per  hour. 
Time  expended  by  the  operators  in  management  details,  reported  for  all  dairies, 
totaled  $14,938.56,  thus  amounting  to  12.5  per  cent,  or  %,  of  the  sums  spent 
for  manual  labor. 

Thirty-seven  of  these  41  dairymen  reported  the  use  of  horses  in  connection 
with  the  handling  of  the  dairy,  the  total  time  thus  expended  amounting  to  43,933 
horse  hours,  costing.  $3702.32.  The  average  cost  for  all  work  done  by  this  work- 
stock  on  the  various  dairies  averaged  8.4  cents  per  hour,  but  varied  from  5.2  to 
22.7  cents  per  hour. 

Eight  automobiles  and  five  trucks  on  as  many  dairies  were  used  in  connection 
with  the  work  of  the  dairy.  The  cost  per  mile,  based  on  all  work  done  by  these 
machines,  averaged  7.8  cents,  varying  from  3.6  to  13.3  cents  a  mile.  The  dairies 
utilized  these  machines  to  the  extent  of  45,270  miles  at  a  total  cost  of  $3,519.52. 

All  but  two  dairymen  reported  the  use  of  pasture,  the  total  cost  amounting 
to  $30,571.79.  Based  on  the  number  of  cows  carried  by  the  dairies  possessing  or 
buying  pasturage,  the  average  cost  per  cow  for  the  year  amounted  to  $12.27.  The 
costs  per  ton  of  other  feeds  used  during  the  year  averaged  for  the  period  when 
these  studies  were  conducted:  Hay,  $13.82;  concentrates,  $31.46;  green  feed, 
$3.41;  silage,  $5.90;  roots,  $3.49;  bean  straw,  $4.48. 

Thirty-six  of  these  41  dairymen  paid  cash  for  the  hauling  of  their  dairy  out- 
put, the  cost  of  this  contract  work  amounting  to  $16,573.96.  In  addition,  purchase 
of  supplies,  cow  testing  fees,  veterinary  services,  and  similar  charges  totaled 
$10,290.87,  all  dairymen  finding  it  necessary  to  make  expenditures  of  this  nature. 
Operating  capital  amounted  to  $26,179,  ranging  from  $22  to  $10,000. 

The  investment  in  milking  herds  on  these  41  dairies  for  the  year  that  they 
were  under  observation  amounted  to  $327,226.58,  of  which  cow  values  made  up 
$311,255,  or  about  95  per  cent,  bulls  to  the  value  of  $15,971.58  making  up  the 
balance.  Average  values  of  cows  ranged  from  a  low  in  one  herd  of  $55  to 
a  high  average  in  another  herd  of  $200.  Average  cow  values  of  28  herds  amounted 
to  $100  or  less  per  head.  The  average  value  of  all  cows  was  close  to  $107  per 
head.  Bulls  ranged  in  value  from  a  low  of  $55  to  $3750,  averaging  close  to  $250 
a  head.     Of  the  63  bulls  reported  for  the  district,  30  were  priced  at  $150  or  less. 

Twenty-one  of  these  41  herds  increased  in  cow  values  during  the  year,  based 
on  productive  capacity,  so  that  these  dairies  reflected  an  appreciation  rather  than 
a  depreciation  in  cow  values  sufficiently  high  to  offset  the  depreciation  suffered 
by  the  other  20  herds,  leaving  a  final  figure  of  $7356.99  net  appreciation.  Seven 
herds  reported  bull  appreciation,  but  total  depreciation  of  the  remaining  herds 
was  sufficiently  high  to  make  a  net  depreciation  for  this  group  of  dairies  amount- 
ing to  $5,036.  The  total  herd  appreciation,  on  both  cows  and  bulls,  amounted  to 
$2,320.99. 

Thirty-two  dairies  lost  cows  from  various  mortality  causes  during  the  year 
that  these  cost  data  were  being  collected.  The  number  lost  totaled  155,  valued 
at  $14,582.  Seven  bulls  on  five  dairies  were  lost,  valued  at  $1400.  Losses  thus 
totaled  4.7  per  cent  of  the  cows  and  11.1  per  cent  of  the  bulls  maintained  in 
the  herds  during  the  year.  The  average  value  of  cows  dying  was  $94.77,  or  not 
much  below  the  average  value  of  the  total  number  of  cows  maintained  in  the 
herds. 

Building  equipment  on  these  41  dairies  consisted  of  48  milking  barns,  four 
dairies  possessing  2  each,  and  one  dairy  4;   42  milk  houses;   47  shelter  and  feed 


Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT        61 

sheds,  two  dairies  having  1  each,  one  4,  and  one  10;  and  39  silos,  five  having  2 
each,  one  6,  and  one  10.  The  investment  in  these  structures  varied  on  the 
different  dairies  from  $433  to  $46,932.50,  totaled  $219,070,  and  averaged  close  to 
$5343  per  dairy.  Of  the  41  dairymen,  14  possessed  less  than  a  $2000  investment 
in  dairy  structures,  19  had  from  $2000  to  $5000  invested,  3  from  $5000  to  $10,000, 
2  between  $10,000  and  $20,000,  and  3  in  excess  of  $20,000.  Thirty-one  dairymen 
paid  for  various  items  of  building  upkeep,  totaling  $7786.38,  and  varying  from 
$2.50  to  $3242.  Upkeep  expenditures  amounted  to  3.6  per  cent  on  the  investment 
in  dairy  structures.  Depreciation  totaled  $10,654,  or  4.9  per  cent  of  the  invest- 
ment. 

A.  total  of  209.1  acres  of  land  was  recorded  as  being  required  for  corrals  and 
dairy  building  sites.  Eental  value  was  set  at  a  total  of  $3780.75,  thus  amounting 
to  an  annual  charge  per  acre  of  $18.08.  Investment  in  fences,  watering  facilities, 
sewage  disposal  systems,  and  similar  improvements  amounted  to  $51,346.75,  rang- 
ing from  $180.50  to  $17,250.80,  and  averaged  $1252.  Seventeen  dairymen  spent 
sums  ranging  from  $2.50  to  $770  for  upkeep  of  these  improvements,  totaling 
$1199.80,  or  practically  2  per  cent  of  the  investment  in  these  items.  Depreciation 
during  the  year  amounted  to  $4,487.50,  or  8.7  per  cent  of  the  investment, 

Dairying  equipment  required  by  these  41  dairies  consisted  of  23  separators, 
4  milking  machines,  6  milk  tanks,  25  milk  vats,  8  can  racks,  4  milk  troughs,  5 
heaters,  17  boilers,  8  stoves,  59  lanterns,  11  scales,  3  feed  grinders,  1  ice  plant, 
4  milk  trucks,  12  motors,  31  strainers,  19  coolers,  66  carts,  29  wheelbarrows,  7 
manure  pushers,  2  sprayers,  2  pumps,  9  gasoline  engines,  145  forks,  59  brooms, 
55  shovels,  43  wash  tubs,  324  milk  pails  and  buckets,  205  milk  cans,  60  brushes, 
and  a  miscellaneous  assortment  of  such  items  as  hose,  fire  extinguishers,  ther- 
mometers, axes,  silage  conveyors,  cream  agitators,  milk  testers,  cowbells,  clippers, 
pans,  dippers,  filters,  clarifiers,  whitewashing  outfits,  kicking  chains,  veterinary 
outfits,  hobbles,  hoes,  manure  stands,  and  various  shafting,  pulleys,  and  belts. 
Investment  in  this  equipment  totaled  $15,758.34,  averaged  $384.34,  and  ranged 
from  $21.65  to  $1,803.97.  Twenty  of  these  41  dairies  had  an  investment  in  dairy 
equipment  of  less  than  $200  per  dairy,  thirteen  had  from  $200  to  $500  invested, 
and  the  remaining  eight  had  in  excess  of  $500  invested.  All  dairymen  made 
expenditures  for  dairy  equipment  upkeep,  totaling  $4201.30,  but  ranging  from 
$4  to  $2076.20.  The  sum  spent  in  upkeep  was  equivalent  to  26.6  per  cent  of 
the  investment.  Depreciation  amounted  to  $2632.72,  or  16.6  per  cent  of  the 
amount  invested  in  dairy  equipment. 

Miscellaneous  receipts  were  scattering  and  unimportant.  Sales  of  feed  bags 
and  hides  were  the  only  items  recorded,  the  former  totaling  $604,  the  latter  $65.55. 

A  total  of  2534  calves  of  the  total  number  born  were  assigned  a  value  by  the 
dairymen  upon  whose  dairies  they  appeared,  amounting  to  $16,881  at  the  time  that 
the  dams'  milk  could  be  used  for  human  consumption.'  This  figures  $6.67  per 
head,  most  of  the  dairymen  considering  calves  of  this  age  as  being  worth  $5  to 
$10.  The  lowest  assigned  value  was  $2.50  each  for  46  calves,  the  highest  $30  each 
for  70  calves. 

Two  dairies  reported  sales  of  manure  totaling  $97.50.  Of  the  two,  one  con- 
sidered the  manure  of  value  only  to  the  extent  that  he  made  sales,  while  the  other 
ascribed  value  to  that  used  on  his  own  farm.  In  addition  to  these  two,  27  dairy- 
men considered  the  manure  as  having  some  value  on  their  places,  while  12  dairy- 
men deemed  the  manure  to  be  of  no  value.  Total  value  of  manure  from  the 
2912  cows  and  63  bulls  amounted  to  $7329. 


CO 

00M(O«rt(SCO 
©   ©   CO    ©   CO    O   00 

N    N*    CO    N    ©    ■*'    i-i 
CO- , 

■  s 

00 

© 

«©  CO 

OS* 

198.65 
7542 

$2.64 

$ 

198.65 
17.21 

<* 

^2 

rH 

CO 
CO 

»o 
© 

2* 

a 

N    ^    H    N    H    N 
)   00    H    IO    IO   N    O) 

3 

CO 

CO 

©' 

o 

CO           ** 
00 

©        © 

*2      ° 

rH                          O                rH 
rH                        CO              © 

co'                ©CO 

-    ^2    - 

CO 

^r: 

8 

CO 

© 
co" 

00 

>    CO    ■*     ©    TfH     CO     Tt< 
00               CO     rH 

<o  o 

rH     C 

« 

a 

C£ 

— i    t-    ©    CO    CO    CO 

©    00    O    CO    IO    IO 

oo 
l> 

CO 
CO 

«©  co 

© 

00 

00 

© 

00          o 

CO            IO 

rH                  OS 

m  co 

iO                   ©           © 
CO                   00           iO 

co'                CO          r-I 

«©                          rH                CO 

95   CO 

c 
co 

CN 

^2 

00 
CO 

co 

© 
od 

IO 

CO    IO    ©   N   tP    © 

►  2      " 

co  ev 

CO    if 

C 
« 

OCOHMO 
©    •<#     rH    ©    r-i    © 

OS 

C©     rH 

»o 
»o 

IO 

CO 

©        © 
co 

CO           © 

»3      * 

©                   CO            IO 
CO                  ©           CO 

CO                   CO           t^ 

m                          rH                rH 

1>           00 
CO 

CO 
CO           N 

^2      - 

© 

00 
IO 

CO    -*           i-l    i-l    — 

©     rH 

> 

25 

CC 

or 

O     H     H     to     CO    O 

IO    ©    IO    ©    ©    CO 

CO 

00 
CO 

e©  co 

© 
© 

IO 

co 

co         © 

CO 

co         oo 

CO            © 

m  co 

t>-              co         © 
co              co        ^ 

co              co         io 

«fc                             CO                  rH 

e©  co 

CO 
O           CO 

e©  co 

IO 
00 

©    ■<*    CO    CO    N    CO 

,2      'H'H 

2s 

1             00    00    iO    ©    CO    t^    CO 
00   ffi    CC    ©   lO   00    00 



tH    CM    IO    "tH    IO    CO    i-l 

CD    ©           CO 

IO 
CO 

CO 

«©  co 

CO 

©        © 

o 

©         t>. 

©       N 

«©   CO 

CO        1                   rH                OS 

'  N      1                ©             CO 

co'               ©         N 

«^                        ©              rH 

S©   CO 

CO            CO 
CO 

IO 
CO            00 

© 

la 

oc 
a 

CO    ©    CO    ©    CO    —I 
rH    CO     i-l    O    CO     © 

00 

»o 

.©2 

iO 

oo 
© 

co 

©        co 
»o 

IO           N 

©                        CO              TfH 

O                   ©           00 

co'              io        © 

m  1  »z    ~ 

©           CO 

© 

Tff                © 

»3      rt 

© 
© 

00 

IO   CO    i-H    CO    CO    i-H 
1>             CO    i-H 

2  S 

CC 

IT 

N 

CO 

CN    N    00   to    H    O 
©    ©    l>    CO    CO    1> 

co' 

^2 

3 

iO 

1> 

co        n 

d      2 

^2    » 

©                   N            IO 

00                   CO           I> 

CO                           ©                Tjl 
m              ^.00              rH 

CO                rH 

© 

'-i         co 

N           CO 

e©  h 

CO 

CO    CO    ■<*    ©    tJH    i-H 

b-                CO     rH 

§s 

iO    N    O)   O    ^    h    00 

>*  ©  n  o  m  *  o 

OS    O    •*    rt<    t>    CO    CO 

co  ic        — 
e© 

© 

6©     rH 

00 
CO 

co 

rH                OS 

O            iO 

rH                IO 

m     rH 

O                  CO           •* 

^          1                 rH                1> 

CO*                   t>           CO 

¥$                          rH                rH 

o 

^2 

CO 

• 
IO 

2 

IO 

co 

iO 

Ss 

a- 

CC 

IT 

CC 

00    ©    l>    !>    CO    CO 

rH     IO     rH     t^     CO     rH 

CO 

00 

8 

«©    rH 

© 
o 

© 

CO 

00                rH 
r-i                OS 

IO           © 

c 

Cn 

Cn 

II            CO            CO 

II            00           © 

i-I            IO 

>       \                   IO                rH 
1         ?©      rH 

o 

oc 

ic 

CO 

«©  - 

• 

CO 

CO 

© 

iO 

rH     CO     CO     CO     CO     rH 
©     rH     rH 

■o  3 

CO    ■*    CO    CO   N    iO    h 
CO   00   N    OS    CO    CO   (M 

CO*    •*    00    "■#    OS    CO    to 
CO    OS 

m 

© 
© 

€©    rH 

© 

GO 

Tf                00 

© 

CO            © 

m     rH 

o 
c 

M 

1         <x 

1               CM 

1    a&  - 

d 

c 

(M 

« 

6S     r- 

CO 

© 

1-t 

© 

00 

<o  oc 

iO    N 

-&  co  ■*  ■*  os  co  oo 

CO    00    OS    iO    00    O    00 
©    00    IO    CM    OS    »o    CO 

to  ©        co  h  h 
«© 

iO 
CO 

©' 
CO 

m  co 

© 
co 

© 

iO           © 

© 

CO            © 

rH                CO 

«#   CO 

o 

1         ©        © 

iO         o 
CO            IO 

|                   rH                rH 

1      <5©   CO 

©        © 

iO 

© 

f-            iO 
©           CO 

m      rH 

oo 
oo 

•"*  II- 

10  ^ 

o 

CO 

O 

co 

00     rH    ©    00    ©    CO 

n  o  ©  tj<  ©  © 

© 

s 

»3 

>o 

co 

00 

c<- 

m    r- 

co 
o 
o 

IO 

If 

CN 

TH            © 

n         co 

l>'                r-i 

CO            y-f 

m     rH 

iO           © 

co 

© 
©       © 

CO                rH 
m     rH 

<* 

00    CO    CO    00    CO 

©     i-H     rH 

2S 

S9 

00    00    ■*    CO    rH    CO 

00   N    to    H    IO    H 

S©     r-< 

© 

00 

©' 

oo 

00           N 

IO 

©              TH 

CO            iO 

m     rH 

If 

oo        io 

00                T« 

CO*           CO 

co         i-* 

S%     rH 

co 

o 
© 

rH 

IO 
iO 

© 

N    CO    IO   CO    CO    N 
iflH           CO 

2    N 

CC 

o 

N    CO    H    iO    IO   'f 

©     CO     CO     -tf     rH     CO 

© 
e©  co 

iO 

• 

c 

© 

CO 

© 

00 

1       fr- 

c 

CM 

1   «©  o 

© 
© 

c 

oc 

m  i- 

oo 

© 
© 

CO 

© 

00     IO     rH     OS     ©     rH 
©     CO     rH 

S  £ 

CC 
OC 

©    CO    to    l>    ■*    CO 

O    CON    ffi    H    H 

>o 

oo 

«#     rH 

© 
© 

©                  rH 

o         © 
co        io 

m     rH 

« 

||                 rH                rH 

N            ©           00 

d        co 

^2      - 

c 
oc 

6©     r^ 

CO 

© 

oo 

•    o 
© 

CO    ©            ©    CO    CO 

3  « 

•0 

o 
o 

(N    00    N    to    N    CO 
IO    00    ©    CO    00    tO 

oo 

00 

m  co 

co 

CO 

© 

n         co 

io        co 

CO             N 

m  co 

co 

M 

1             u" 
K 

€#    CM 

o 
© 

1— 1 

CC 

c 
o 

«©    CS 

CO 

© 

CO 

00 

CO 

00 

00    ION    00    tO    H 
N    H    CO    IO 

©©■*■*    iO    ©    © 
ii    H   «    N    IO   N    00 

CO    rtl    ©    IO    OS    ■*    CO 

W9HH 

«© 

© 

^2 

CO 
CO 

« 

© 
oo 
co 
oo 

c 

o 
© 

co 

IT 
€©     r- 

•o 

• 
co 

© 

CO 

© 

CO 

•o 

rS  <* 

Ol    to   O    "O   CO    CO    H 

oo  co  o  co  ©  i-h  Tt< 

co'  OS  CN   ©   IO   IO  <-I 
"*    t*    CO    CO    i-h 

oo 
co 

^rH 

>o 

co 

CO            © 
N            iO 

«#     rH 

K 

co        © 

CO            "# 

d        co 

t*rH                ^ 

CV 

oc 

IT 

«©  1- 

co 

• 

oo 

00 

rH 

I> 

co 

CO 

rH     CO 

CO 

r-    00    IO   CO    CO    © 
00    H    CON    CO    iO 

o 
© 

€©     rH 

© 

00 

00 

oc 

c 
o 

«©     r- 

© 
© 

IT 

CM 

«*1 

oc 

© 

- 
o 

tr 

«©     r- 

o 

CO 

©' 

©     ©     00     CO     CO     rH 
00    rH               rH 

Ave.  of 
Dist. 
2912 

•o 

o 

oc 

©     N      N      CO      rH      © 

O)    N    ^    H    CON 

CO 

CO 

co 

00 

c 

tC 

«#     r- 

© 
© 

CC 

<N 

c 
co 

1             5C 

«©     r- 

IO 

o 

iO 

o 

«©     r- 

IO 

d 

co 

CO 

C-J 

© 

©    ©   CO    CO    tP    CO 

00                rH      rH 

c 

> 

•3 

P 

1 
t 

'c 

0 

il 

s  ^ 
o 

1 

hh 

=      :'    S     :'    £? 

■■      :    %    <v    <a 

CO      «J     3      M     rj 
«     03     h.  hC    +* 

2  'S  I   g  -3 

a    aj    3    o    o* 

r-,  W  W  O  W 

to 

o  «« 

If 

"£    tu 

^6 

CO 

A 

<v 

3 
c 
a 

8 

0) 

o 

It 

"o 

irW 

C)    Cf 

09 

s  '3 
o    B 

1% 

"o 

is  t 

S3       ri 

a  c 

-^      rC 

8  * 

1!      ! 

"o 

i 

■8 
I     55 

J,  ^ 

11 

<41        CO 

+J      CD 

"5  h3 

£     t3 

o 

4) 

0 

rQ 

"o 

1 

•-»  £ 

55 

"o    » 

-o   G 

o  +s 

ft^ 

t-     (1 

a  g 

grO 

o 

o- 

N 

N    tX    CO    H    00 

vOS 

<# 

10 

OS 

IO 

N 

00 

rH 

£  «- 

CO   ©    <N    00   <N    OS    © 

iO 

T)H 

co 

© 

tJI 

o 

n 

CM 

co  N 

^i    ffl    N    M    «3    »    O 

»d 

»d 

o 

iv 

OJ 

©' 

r^ 

CN 

N 

© 

lONH           rH 

^  I>- 

N 

t» 

66 

^  » 

iO 

(N 

iO 

66 

66     r-l 

66    rH 

66   ^ 

66    rH 

lO    O    H    «3    W    CO    O 

00 

•o 

CO 

00 

1             n 

>o 

00 

CO 

rH  *■ 

co  * 

HlNWOCOiON 

CM 

i> 

IO 

TjH 

00 
CO 

o 

IO 

»o 

© 

TjH 

CO 

N 

t|J    M    S    N    N    CO    N 

CO 

co 

OS 

CM 

os 

n 

r-i 

CO 

iO    00    CM    (N    CN) 

^  ° 

co 

IO 

t> 

66 

iO 

TtH 

<N 

iO 

9^                  * 

66     —I 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     ^ 

IN     tH     (N     Tt<     i-H     *£     Tfl 

IO    CO    CO    CO    OS    CD.  O 

rH 

CM 

OS 

N 

OS 

© 

© 

CM 

2    © 

t> 

OS 

t-- 

IO 

O 

l> 

© 

l> 

N 

N 

co  n 

OS   Tti   CM    ,-!    00    Tti    CN 

CO 

CO 

co 

co 

CO 

CO 

OJ 

N 

r>- 

id 

N    H    (N    CO 

co 

iO 

00 

66 

iO 

CO 

<N 

00 

m     rH 

66   CM 

66   CN 

66   <N 

66  CM 

OS    CO    CM    Tfi    OS    l>    i-i 

■o 

00 

N 

00 

N 

rH 

CO 

© 

2  © 

CO    <N 

iO   O    OS   O    00    i-i    Tfi 

o 

T)H 

to 

00 
<N 

os 

IO 

CO 

CN 

1 

>-H 

rji    CN    CO   l>    Tji    CM    i-i 

OS 

^ 

r)H 

,_ 

TtH 

TfH 

© 

© 

CO    CD           i-l 

CM 

CM 

CD 

66 

CM 

iO 

9=> 

66    rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

.      66     r^ 

i*    O    i1    CoCO    ON 

N 

N 

O 

N 

O 

TtH 

© 

rH 

OICJN    iO    0ON    CO 

iO 

TjH 

O 

00 

Tt< 

CM 

00 

"    © 

N 

CO 

CO    "* 

CO    CO    "5    00    Tti    i-l 

CM 

CM 

8 

CO 
IO 

m 

8 

CM 

00 
00 

00 

d 

TjH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66 

CO    CO    CD    00    CO    IO    CM 

CO 

N 

CO 

§ 

CD 

Tfl 

(N 

CM 

o  _ 

O    CD    O    IO    Tfi    i-H    CD 

IO 

CO 

CO 

(N 

o 

OS 

CO    «» 

d  d  id  ©  Tti  co  i-i 

N 

CO 

00 

co 

© 

t> 

CM 

Tf<      OS 

■O 

iO 

-* 

66 

iO 

T»H 

00 



66 

66     r-l 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66    rH 

OS    O    CO    OS    ^h    o    o 

iO 

CO 

os 

OS 

os 

00 

rH 

r^ 

§    CO 
CO    ® 

N    HN    H    N    OlO 

Tfl 

CM 

OS 

CO 

00 

00 

OS 

TjJ 

OS     CO     00     OS    l>     i-H     >-H 

Tti 

CD 

00 

(N 

CM 

00 

TfJ 

co 

t>i 

co  b- 

T* 

co 

CO 

66 

CO 

CN 

<N 

iO 

e© 

66     r-l 

66    <-t 

66     rH 

66   i-^ 

i-h    O    CO    00    CO    N    CO 

T}H 

iO 

os 

co 

OS 

iO 

3 

d 

I> 

b-     TfH 

o  o 

CO     r-l 

IO 

iONOCO    OlN 

CO 
IO 

00 

T(H 

TtH 

o" 

b- 

CM 

TtH 

d 

© 
d 

CM 

© 

CN 

CO   »  N   CO   ri   ci 

CN    CM    i-H    CM 

O 

o 

TtH 

66 

o 

00 

iO 

66 

66   h 

96     rH 

66     rH 

66 

i-H     CD     Tt<     H     CO     TtH     T* 

CD 

IN 

"<* 

CO 

TtH 

© 

00 

00 

Is 

NO    HN^O    "3 

t> 

O 

N 

00 

00 

I> 

CM 

TJH 

IO 

o 

<N 

Tf' 

IO   if)   CO    H    CO   CO    H 

co 

CN 

,_! 

CN 

r- 

t> 

TjH 

CO 

CM    IO 

OS 

OS 

co 

66 

os 

00 

I> 

9? 

66 

6% 

66 

66 

iO    CO    M<    iO   CO    tjh    N 

CD 

OS 

N 

rH 

N 

co 

T(H 

© 

(—1   "^ 
CO   n 

•^    CO    CD    t-h    00    CD    LO 

r- 

iO 

t^ 

t> 

IO 

o 

IO 

Tf 

CO 

© 

T|i    IO    't    iO   N    *    H 

CT> 

id 

TtH 

co 

<N 

TtH 

CM 

CN 

o 

Tti 

Tt<     O               i-H 

CD 

CM 

•<* 

•o 

66 

TfH 

^    n 

<N 

© 

e#  i-H        * 

66     H 

66     rH 

66    rH 

66    rH 

os  o  os  oo  oo  co  os 

CO 

N 

os 

IO 

OS 

N 

CN 

© 

Tf<    CO    00    00    <N    ©    l> 

CM 

CM 

OS 

OS 

00 

© 

~  co 

^H 

co 

id    —i    Tti    00    IO    IN 

OS 

I> 

■o 

CM 

l> 

Tfl 

© 

Tfi 

tH    t-           CO 

CO 

CO 

N 

66 

co 

TtH 

CM 

IO 

66 

66      rH 

66   ^ 

66     rH 

66     r-< 

OS    CO    i-i    O    O    CM    IO 

o 

CO 

h- 

O 

I> 

© 

rH 

00 

§8 

CO    w 

O    --I    CO    iO    "H    Tfi    CO 

CN 

os 

CM 

os 

iO 

CM 

00 

TtH 

TfH 

o 

IN 

IO    CO     OS    00     CO    CO     rH 

t> 

tJh' 

CM 

<N 

co 

CN 

© 

00 

CO 

IO    I>    i-l    CM 

CO 

00 

IO 

66 

00 

t-~ 

© 

m 

66     r-l 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66    <-< 

H     HCJION     !ON 

,— 1 

CO 

IO 

00 

iO 

TfH 

,-i 

rl 

CO     CO     Tfl     00     i-H     TtH     Tfl 

CD 

«# 

iO 

■* 

© 

IO 

IO 

o 
o 

d 

(O   i-I   ^    00    O    i-i    H 

rji 

iO 

OS 

CM 

d 

cc 

id 

Tti 

IO    CD           i-l    i-l 

iO 

TfH 

CO 

66 

TfH 

CO 

CM 

© 

66 

6%      rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66    rH 

t)H    CO    CN    Tf<    CO    iO    00 

l> 

CD 

1— 1 

l> 

rH 

CO 

00 

^{ 

CN   *** 

N    ^    IO   N    IO    CO    IO 

OS 

iO 

rf< 

CM 

O 

TtH 

CO 

© 

N 

CO 

id 

CO    Tfl    Tfi    OS    CO    CM    r-l 

OS 

00 

00 

CM 

CO 

00 

© 

(N 

■*  co 

CM 

CM 

IO 

66 

CN 

© 

<N 

iO 

&6 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66    rH 

rH    00    b-    --I    i-i    CO    OS 

O 

o 

O 

OS 

o 

CN 

00 

<N 

§s 

CM    CD    CO    00    Tt<    CD    l> 

OS 

CO 

co 

00 

N 

CO 

CO 

© 

© 

t*i 

O*    CM    CO    i-H    O    CN    r-5 

cm" 

TtH 

00 

00 

© 

iO 

Tfi 

T*    iO           CM 

CO 

CN 

N 

6% 

CM 

(N 

TfH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66   r-l 

CO    O    CO    00    iO    t>    CO 

IO 

CM 

CO 

co 

CO 

£> 

© 

1> 

Sfe 

^    OS    (N    ^    N    CO    O 

l> 

CO 

CO 

CN 

© 

o 

00 

T(i    N    t>    d    l>    id    CN 

«* 

co 

00 

CN 

00 

© 

TJH 

N-' 

Tt*     00 

CD 

iO 

l> 

6© 

iO 

TJH 

CM 

iO 

66 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

iO   00    iO    ^    >o   CO    00 
TfH    CO    00    Tf<    — i    CO    OS 

00 

CO 

CN 

CM 

CN 

OS 

CO 

00 

CM   w 

iO 

CM 

co 

00 

CM 

co 

© 

© 

' 

00 

N  00  d  o  oi  00  H 

N 

»d 

<N 

CM 

CN 

N- 

Tfi 

N 

© 

Tf    OOhh 

N 

N. 

N 

46 

l> 

iO 

CM 

IO 

66 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

66     rH 

IO    00    CO    CO    iO    OS    CM 

CM 

CN 

O 

os 

1                 © 

00 

<N 

<N 

CN    <° 

O     rH     T}H     CO     1-H     CO     OS 

IO 

CD 

o 

os 

© 

l> 

OC 

iO 

iO 

OS 

CO 

TtH 

•*'    N    CO    O    H    CO    CN 

OS 

6 

00 

rH 

00 

id 

CN 

© 

Tfl     00              rH     rH 

IO 

CM 

co 

CD 

63 

co 

CN 

<N 

iO 

66                   * 

66     rH 

66     rH 

1      66     rH 

66    rH 

i*    ■*    O    CO    00    N    CD 

T« 

I> 

N 

iO 

l> 

© 

^-1 

© 

CO   o 
OS    00 
<N    .1 

CM    "3   t>    O    OS    O    O 
i-l   CM    Tti    Tti    00    CM    CO 

iO 
CN 

co 

00 

CM 
l> 

N 

CO 

© 

TjH 

Tji 

© 

© 

CO 

TtH    t-              1-H 

co 

CM 

^   ° 

CD 

m 

o 

^     ® 

<N 

Tfl 

66                   * 

66     r-l 

66     rH 

1      66     r-l 

m 

IN    H    N    tJI    ^    CO    O 

^H 

CD 

IO 

co 

1        »o 

CN 

CO 

© 

10    _i 

CM    OS   OS    r-i    OS    i-H    t- 

O 

IO 

^H 

OS 
CD 

co 

TfH 

IO 

OS 

iO 

iO 

8* 

co  co  co  os  os  co 

N 

id 

rH 

<N 

rH 

1> 

« 

r-i 

CO     O     r-l     CO 

O 

o 

l> 

93 

o 

^  °° 

<N 

N 

66   CM 

€6   CM 

1    66  <N 

9^    1-4 

NO)    IO    Tf    N    CO    a 

CD 

§ 

CD 

00 

1            CO 

CO 

CO 

TjH 

©  ►* 

CM    N 

IO    IO    CM    CM    OS    OS    CO 

CO 

O 

CN 

'~l 

O 

N 

« 

d 

CO 

IO     i-H     CO     O     1-1     IO     r-l 

OS 

os 

O 

co 

CN 

c 

K 

CO 

IO 

t^ 

IO     OS     r-l     r-<     rH 

l> 

CO 

t» 

93 

CO 

TJH 

<N 

IO 

66                   * 

66     r-l 

66    rH 

1     66    r-l 

66    rH 

C 
| 

5 

1 

o 

"8 

CD 

•1 

3 

00 

13 

a 

a 

:     :    h    4J    c3 

91      CO      5      M     rj 

8  -2  2  g  •§• 

a  «  9  o  o1 

1 

o 
en 

o 

M 

o 

^T     >h 
23      CD 

6 

r2 

"o 

^3 

*o 

O       L 

O    3= 
«1 

i 

.2  s 

'-P      CD 

T)     rg 

O     ? 

"o 

o."c 
3  ^ 

r2 

"o 

* 

■8 

^       r 

3 

> 

O 

1          . 

■2 

"8  «2 

CO 

£1 

o  rt. 

£ 

42 

C3 

"o   8 

8  -° 
o 

P 

£ 

o 

EH 

fe 

o 

1      ^ 

Z 

64         ■  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA-— EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Of  the  41  dairymen  constituting  the  group  from  which  cost  data  was  collected 
during  the  year  that  these  dairies  were  under  observation,  17  sold  whole  milk 
exclusively,  17  sold  butterfat  exclusively,  6  sold  both  ^yhole  milk  and  butterfat, 
and  1  retailed  his  output.  In  all,  these  41  dairies  produced  a  grand  total  of 
19,261,550  pounds  of  whole  milk  containing  671,202.03  pounds  of  butterfat. 
Individual  herd  test  averages  varied  from  3.31  to  3.76  per  cent  butterfat  in  whole 
milk,  the  average  test  for  the  total  production  running  close  to  3.5  per  cent.  Of 
the  total  production,  92.4  per  cent  was  sold  and  7.6  per  cent  used  at  the  dairy. 

The  average  annual  production  of  all  the  2912  cows  maintained  during  the 
year  in  these  amounted  to  6614  pounds  of  whole  milk,  or  230.5  pounds  of  butterfat 
per  cow.  The  lowest  herd  average  for  the  year  amounted  to  3208  pounds  of  whole 
milk  containing  114.8  pounds  of  butterfat;  the  highest  herd  average  reached  a 
figure  of  9510  pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow  per  year,  containing  328.1  pounds 
of  butterfat.  Of  the  total  41  dairies,  22  registered  an  average  herd  production 
figure  less  than  the  district  average  for  both  whole  milk  and  butterfat.  Thirteen 
dairy  herds  of  the  41  produced  a  yearly  average  to  the  cow  amounting  to  195.2 
pounds  or  less  of  butterfat. 

Based  on  receipts  from  sales  obtained  by  dairymen  selling  either  whole  milk 
or  butterfat  exclusively,  and  on  the  wholesale  market,  the  average  net  price  received 
during  the  year  under  observation  amounted  to  45  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat 
sold,  and  $2.16  per  hundred  pounds  of  whole  milk. 


Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

For  purposes  of  recording  the  variation  in  costs  as  experienced 
by  the  individual  dairies  of  the  41  studied  in  Sacramento  and  Yolo 
counties,  a  table  is  inserted  (table  10),  setting  forth  the  various  items 
entering  into  the  cost  of  producing  milk  on  the  different  dairies. 

Dairies  numbered  144  to  165  inclusive  are  in  Sacramento  County ; 
dairies  numbered  from  293  to  317  inclusive  are  in  Yolo  County; 
dairies  numbered  203,  204,  and  205  are  in  San  Joaquin  County,  close 
to  the  Sacramento  County  line,  and  included  with  this  district  for 
reasons  as  set  forth  in  the  opening  paragraphs. 

The  cost  of  production  on  the  41  dairies  studied  ranged  from  $1.75 
to  $3.50  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk,  and  from  43.6  cents  to 
93.4  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat.  The  average  cost  for  the  district 
was  $2.46  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk  and  64.2  cents  per  pound 
of  butterfat. 

Twenty  dairies  produced  whole  milk  and  butterfat  above  the  aver- 
age cost  of  the  district,  while  the  cost  was  below  the  average  on  21 
of  the  dairies. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       65 

5.    SAN    JOAQUIN-STANISLAUS    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Seventeen  dairies  contributed  complete  cost  data  in  the  San 
Joaquin-Stanislaus  district.  Eight  of  these  dairies  were  located  in 
Stanislaus  and  nine  in  San  Joaquin  counties.  Six  of  these  dairies 
were  tributory  to  Ripon,  five  to  Modesto,  and  one  each  to  Lockeford, 
Escalon,  Stockton,  Hickman,  Hughson,  and  Waterford.  Conditions 
on  these  dairies  were  generally  similar  and  the  findings  are  deemed 
entirely  comparable. 

All  records,  with  but  one  exception,  ran  from  January  1,  1922. 
The  exception  covered  the  year  from  April  1,  1922. 

These  17  dairies  utilized  a  total  of  1521  acres.  The  smallest  hold- 
ing consisted  of  but  3  acres,  corral  feeding  being  practiced.  The 
largest  holding  consisted  of  400  acres,  of  which  300  acres  were  rolling 
hills  providing  some  grain  and  some  pasturage.  Twelve  of  the  17 
holdings  contained  less  than  50  acres,  ranging  from  3  to  49  acres,  and 
averaging  25  acres.  These  places  were  invariably  irrigated  lands 
utilized  for  the  growing  of  alfalfa,  silage  crops,  and  grain,  sometimes 
being  double-cropped  during  the  season.  The  larger  holdings,  those 
having  100  acres  or  more,  possessed  some  pasture  land  consisting  of 
rolling  hills. 

Methods  of  feeding  the  milking  herd  varied  somewhat  on  the 
different  dairies,  but  in  general  consisted  of  corral  feeding  with 
alfalfa  hay,  some  silage,  and  a  limited  amount  of  concentrates.  Use 
of  pasture  was  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Thirteen  dairymen 
reported  no  use  of  pasture  whatever,  while  the  remaining  four  had 
pasture  for  but  limited  periods,  ranging  from  1  to  7  months.  Pasture 
was  available  during  the  spring  and  early  summer  months.  Feeding 
of  hay  the  year  round  was  common.  Thirteen  dairymen  fed  hay  12 
months,  while  one  each  fed  for  11,  10,  9,  and  6  months  respectively. 
Alfalfa  hay  was  outstandingly  used,  although  four  dairymen  made 
some  use  of  oat  or  wild  grass,  one  dairyman  using  wild  grass  hay 
exclusively.  Eleven  of  the  dairymen  fed  silage  for  periods  ranging 
from  1  to  11  months.  Six  of  the  eleven  fed  for  6  months  or  longer, 
feeding  of  silage  being  usually  confined  to  the  late  fall,  winter,  and 
early  spring  months.  Much  variation  existed  in  the  feeding  of  con- 
centrates both  in  periods  when  such  feeds  were  given  and  in  the 
amounts  fed,  some  dairymen  using  rather  limited  quantities.  Three 
dairymen  fed  the  year  round,  seven  fed  from  6  to  11  months,  four 
fed  less  than  5  months,  and  three  fed  no  concentrates  at  all.    Feeding 


66  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

of  concentrates  when  practiced  for  less  than  a  full  year  was  usually 
confined  to  the  late  fall,  winter,  and  early  spring  months.  Of  ten 
different  kinds  of  concentrates  used  by  these  dairymen,  barley  was 
most  generally  fed,  thirteen  dairymen  feeding  in  quantity,  with  six 
of  these  using  no  other  form  of  concentrate.  Other  feeds  used  for  a 
month  now  and  then  were  pumpkins,  utilized  by  one  dairyman,  and 
bean  straw,  fed  by  another. 

An  average  of  417  cows  and  22  bulls  were  maintained  on  these 
17  dairies  during  the  year  that  these  costs  studies  were  in  progress. 
The  size  of  the  individual  herds  ranged  from  12  to  64,  and  averaged 
25.  Ten  of  the  herds  averaged  20  cows  or  less,  while  but  one  herd 
exceeded  38  in  number,  this  being  the  64-cow.herd  just  referred  to. 

Jerseys,  Guernseys,  Holsteins,  and  one  "mixed"  herd  were  re- 
ported. Of  the  17  herds  covered  by  this  study,  11  herds  were  of 
Holsteins,  2  of  these  herds  being  registered,  4  were  Jerseys,  1  of  which 
was  registered,  1  was  a  combination  of  Jerseys  and  Guernseys,  and 
1  a  mixed  herd. 

All  but  one  herd  were  headed  by  purebred  bulls,  numbering  20 
in  all,  of  which  19  were  registered.  Of  these  20,  12  were  Holsteins, 
5  Jerseys,  and  3  Guernseys,  Seven  dairymen  reported  registered 
cows,  six  of  the  seven  having  a  total  of  107  head,  including  68  Jerseys 
and  30  Holsteins. 

Year  round  freshening  of  cows  to  insure  a  steady  supply  of  milk 
was  the  rule,  although  three  dairymen  were  attempting  to  secure  the 
bulk  of  their  fresh  cows  during  the  fall,  winter,  or  early  spring 
months. 

While  twice  a  day  milking  was  the  general  rule,  two  dairies  did 
some  three  times  a  day  milking.  Generally,  milking  took  place  at 
12-hour  intervals  beginning  at  5  or  5  :30  a.m.  Five  of  the  17  dairy- 
men used  milking  machines,  the  others  relying  on  hand  milkers. 

Nationalities  of  operators  were  stated  to  be  American,  Italian- 
Swiss,  Swiss,  and  Hollander.  Nationalities  of  milkers  were  Swiss, 
American,  and  Hollander. 

All  these  dairymen  were  concerned  with  the  production  of  butter- 
fat  either  for  sale  in  cream  or  as  whole  milk.  Production  of  market 
milk  did  not  enter  into  the  situation.  Milk  sold  whole  was  paid  for 
on  a  butterfat  basis,  so  for  all  practical  purposes  the  district  may  be 
deemed  as  specializing  in  the  production  of  butterfat.  Sales  were 
variously  made  to  the  Modesto  Creamery ;  the  Borden  Condensary,  at 
Modesto ;  the  Hughson  Creamery ;  the  Swift  Creamery,  at  Ceres ;  and 
to  the  Milk  Producers'  Association  of  Central  California,  at  Modesto. 

Fourteen  of  the  17  dairymen  owned  the  dairy  under  their  charge, 
while  three  were  tenants. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         67 

Summary  of  Costs 

The  summarized  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  on 
the  17  dairies  studied  in  San  Joaquin  and  Stanislaus  counties  is  set 
forth,  with  considerable  detail,  in  the  following  table. 

TABLE  11 
Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — San  Joaquin  and  Stanislaus  Counties 

Number  of  dairies 17 

Number  of  cows 417 

Number  of  bulls 22 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  56,438  hours $17,539.72 

Man — management 6,788.00 

Horse,  5,855  hours 479.96 

Truck  and  automobile,  180  miles 18.00 

Insurance 77.75 

Total  labor  cost $24,903.43 

Feed 

Pasture $2,629.00 

Hay,  1,862.06  tons 22,429.17 

Concentrates,  187.53  tons 4,892.74 

Silage,  527.40  tons 3,120.08 

Miscellaneous,  5  tons 28.00 

Insurance 108.00 

Total  feed  costs 33,206.99 

Hauling  milk 2,857.65 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 2,376.32 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $3,581  @  6% 214.86 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle, 

$68,304.00  @  6% $4,098.24 

Depreciation 3,818.25 

Mortality:  22  cows;  0  bulls 4,050.00 

Taxes 670.49 

Gross  herd  charge $12,636.98 

Credits  and  appreciation 4,443.00 

Net  herd  charge ~  8,193.98 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $33,215.17  @  6%      $1,992.90 

Depreciation 1,329.65 

Upkeep 298.47 

Taxes 300.27 

Insurance 199.29 

Total  buildings  charge 4,120.58 


68  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes $617.50 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $6,949.02 

@6% : 416.91 

Depreciation  of  improvements 624.90 

Total  corral  charge $1,659.31 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $4,927.14  @  6%         $295.57 

Depreciation 930.43 

Upkeep 268.65 

Taxes 29.96 

Total  equipment  charge 1,524.61 

Total  gross  cost $79,057.73 

Credits 

Calves,  353 $3,627.70 

Manure 1,790.00 

Total  credits $5,417.70 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $73,640.03 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 2,798,145  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk*. $2.63 

Total  production  of  butterfat 112,699.2  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 65.3  cents 

Total  cost  of  butterfat  in  cream 

Cost  of  whole  milk $73,640.03 

Credit  for  skimmilk,  25,167.10  hundredweight  @  25  cents  per 

100  pounds 6,291.77 

Cost  of  butterfat  in  cream $67,348.26 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  cream 60  cents 

Average  annual  production  per  cow (  671°  Pounds  of,,whole  milk 

{  270.3  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  17  herds  studied  throughout  the  year  in  San  Joaquin  and  Stanislaus  coun- 
ties were  assessed  for  $16,285.  Dairy  buildings  were  assessed  for  $7075,  and 
dairy  equipment  for  $710.  Tax  rates  per  $100  of  assessed  values  ranged  from 
$2.69  to  $5.22.  Total  taxes  paid  amounted  to  $670.49  on  cattle,  $300.27  on  dairy 
structures,  and  $29.96  on  dairy  equipment. 

Dairy  buildings  were  insured  on  all  dairies,  while  five  men  carried  employer's 
liability  insurance,  and  five  carried  insurance  on  feed. 

Manual  labor  used  on  these  17  dairies  cost  an  average  of  31.1  cents  an  hour.  A 
charge  for  management  was  figured  by  each  dairyman,  totaling  $6788,  or  nearly 
30  per  cent  on  the  expenditures  for  manual  labor. 

Four  dairymen  utilized  horse  labor  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  the  dairies, 
the  average  cost  for  all  work  done  by  horses  on  these  dairies  amounting  to  8.2 
cents  an  hour.  For  the  5855  hours  that  horses  were  employed  in  connection  with 
these  four  dairies,  the  charge  amounted  to  $479.96. 

Only  one  automobile  was  reported  used  in  connection  with  any  of  the  dairies 
and  the  use  of  this  machine  totaled  only  $18. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       69 

The  value  of  pasturage  used  by  six  dairymen  amounted  to  $2629,  or,  for  the 
216  cows  pastured,  averaged  $12.17  a  head  a  year.  Per  ton  costs  of  other  feeds 
used  by  this  group  of  dairymen,  during  the  year  that  these  dairies  were  under 
observation,  averaged:  Hay,  $12.05;  concentrates,  $26.09;  silage,  $5.92;  pumpkins, 
$5;   straw,  $8. 

All  dairymen  paid  for  contract  hauling  of  their  output,  and,  in  addition, 
expended  a  total  of  $2376.32  for  supplies,  cow-testing  fees,  and  similar  items. 
Operating  capital  amounted  to  $3581,  ranging  from  $50  to  $415. 

The  average  investment  in  milking  herds  amounted  to  $68,304,  of  which  bulls 
made  up  $8512,  or  12.5  per  cent,  with  the  cows  contributing  the  balance.  Cow 
values  based  on  herd  averages  ranged  from  $100  to  $381,  although  twelve  herds 
were  rated  as  being  worth  between  $100  and  $150,  three  herds  between  $165  and 
$172,  with  the  two  remaining  herds  valued  at  $350  and  $381  per  head,  respectively. 
The  average  cow  value  was  $163.80.  Bull  values  varied  from  $75  to  $1250  per 
head,  with  all  but  2  of  the  22  bulls  reported  for  the  district  possessing  a  value 
of  $150  or  more. 

Eight  of  the  17  herds  studied  in  this  district  showed  an  appreciation  during 
the  year  for  the  milking  cows,  while  two  showed  appreciation  of  bull  values.  The 
net  appreciation  of  cows  amounted  to  $1415.25,  the  net  depreciation  of  bulls  to 
$791,  this  giving  a  net  herd  appreciation  of  $724.75. 

During  the  year  that  these  dairies  were  under  observation,  22  cows  died,  valued 
at  $4050.  No  bulls  were  recorded  as  dying.  The  average  value  per  cow  of  those 
dying  amounted  to  $184,  or  in  excess  of  the  average  values  reported  for  the  cows 
maintained  in  these  herds  during  the  year. 

Dairy  structures  used  by  these  17  dairies  consisted  of  17  milking  barns,  15  milk 
houses,  1  granary,  3  feeding  barns,  14  silos,  and  5  sheds.  Investment  in  these 
structures  amounted  to  $33,215.17,  averaging  about  $1950,  but  ranging  from  $340 
to  $5484.  Five  dairies  were  equipped  with  dairy  structures  involving  an  invest- 
ment of  less  than  $1000,  five  possessed  dairy  buildings  worth  from  $1000  to  $2000, 
four  of  from  $2000  to  $3000,  and  four  in  excess  of  $3000.  Seven  dairymen  spent 
various  sums  for  building  upkeep,  totaling  $298.47,  and  ranging  from  $7.50  to 
$109.50.  Sums  so  spent  constituted  %0  °f  1  Per  cen^  °f  the  amounts  invested  in 
such  items.     Depreciation  amounted  to  $1329.65,  or  4  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

A  total  of  33  *4  acres  of  land  was  utilized  in  corrals  and  dairy  building  sites 
on  these  seventeen  dairies,  ranging  from  %  an  acre  to  5  acres,  and  having  an 
annual  use  value  of  $617.50,  or  $18.30  per  acre.  Investment  in  minor  improve- 
ments, such  as  fences,  watering  facilities  and  sewage  disposal  systems,  totaled 
$6949.02,  averaged  $291.12  per  dairy,  and  ranged  from  $125  to  $1393  for  the 
different  dairies.  Nothing  was  reported  as  having  been  spent  for  corral  upkeep. 
Depreciation  for  the  year  amounted  to  $624.90,  or  practically  9  per  cent  of  the 
investment  in  such  improvements. 

Dairying  equipment  used  on  these  17  dairies  consisted  of  6  milking  machines, 
12  separators,  7  milk  coolers,  43  milk  buckets,  107  milk  cans,  9  milk  carts,  6  gaso- 
line engines,  2  feed  trucks,  1  sterilizer,  8  wheelbarrows,  10  strainers,  4  veterinary 
outfits,  2  clippers,  3  scales,  12  lanterns,  and  a  varied  assortment  of  brooms,  brushes, 
shovels,  forks,  hose,  and  similar  minor  items.  Investment  in  dairy  equipment 
totaled  $4927.14,  averaged  $289.83,  and  ranged  from  $39.37  to  $964.  Fifteen 
dairymen  made  expenditures  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  this  equipment,  the 
sums  so  spent  totaling  $268.65,  although  varying  from  60  cents  to  $54.03  for  the 


70 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


different  dairies.  Upkeep  therefore  constituted  5.5  per  cent  of  the  investment. 
Depreciation  amounted  to  $930.43,  or  18  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  the  investment 
in   such  items. 

Calves  credited  to  the  dairy  numbered  353;  reported  as  worth  $3627.70,  or  ap- 
proximately $10  per  head.  Most  dairymen  valued  any  calves  saved  at  $5  per  head, 
this  being  the  lowest  valuation  placed.     The  highest  was  $50  a  head  on  11  calves. 

No  actual  sales  of  manure  from  the  dairies  were  recorded,  and  of  the  17 
dairymen,  two  did  not  consider  that  the  manure  possessed  any  value.  The  other 
15  gave  the  dairies  credit  to  the  extent  of  $1719,  this  being  for  349  cows  on  these 
15  dairies. 


Pig.  9.-    Typici 

The  barn   of   Fig. 
attached. 


I  dairy  building  layouts  in  the  San  Joaquin-Stanislaus  district. 
9    (Continued)    is  the  two-cow   unit   method   with   milk-house 


Bulletin  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         71 

Six  of  these  17  dairymen  sold  whole"  milk  as  such,  nine  sold  butterfat,  and  two 
sold  both  whole  milk  and  butterfat.  Total  production  of  these  17  dairies  amounted 
to  2,798,145  pounds  of  whole  milk,  containing  112,699.2  pounds  of  butterfat.  Of 
this  total  production,  practically  93  per  cent  was  sold,  while  the  remaining  7  per 
cent  was  used  at  the  dairy.  Tests  of  the  milk  from  the  various  herds  averaged 
from  3.4  to  5.3  per  cent  butterfat,  averaging  for  the  total  production  4.03  per  cent. 

The  average  annual  production  for  the  417  cows  studied  in  this  district 
amounted  to  6710  pounds  of  whole  milk,  or  270.3  pounds  of  butterfat.  The 
lowest  herd  average  of  these  17  dairies  was  51C6  pounds  of  whole  milk;  the  highest 
8667.  The  lowest  herd  average  of  butterfat  production  per  cow  wTas  206.2  pounds; 
the  highest   328.     Of  the   17  dairies,  nine  herd   averages  were  below  the  district 


Fig.  9. —  (Continued.) 


O    <N    > 

O    ©    —l    ©    00 

,_i 

>o 

to 

© 

, 

0 

,_, 

fl)    O   O    iO   fl>   A    iO 

(N 

© 

t^ 

<N 

© 

© 

© 

© 

§3 

CN  M 

© 

O 

(O    CO   M    6  N    W   M 

CN 

00 

•4 

© 

<* 

© 

•* 

g 

■d 

iO   ffl   N    « 

00 

i^ 

00 

CN 

t^ 

iO 

IO 

«© 

e© 

«© 

«© 

«© 

«© 

IN 

Tf    00O    N    O    00    O 

**t 

8 

rf< 

■* 

CO 

^_l 

00    CO    CN    CN    ■*    CN    © 

co 

CO 

00 

© 

CO 

iO 

X 

CO 

© 

8  2' 

© 

iO 

M    ^    Tf    lO    IM    CO    iO 

© 

CO 

to 

<N 

to 

© 

© 

00 

CO 

lO    O     i-l              rH 

© 

T-H 

00 

l> 

CN 

00 

© 

© 

© 

«©    i-l 

e© 

m 

«© 

e© 

m 

CN 

^  n  t  h  n  »  o 

(N 

© 

co 

1         w 

CN 

,_, 

05  a  co   to  ■*  00  00 

© 

CN 

© 

co 

t^ 

© 

© 

o 

CO 

© 

§2 

CN 

CO 

CO  ■*'  00  d  oi  to  oi 

iO    l>            iO 

co 

^ 

ai 

© 

© 

CO 

© 

r^ 

c 

© 

IO 

CO 

© 

00 

© 

S3 

«© 

IN 

e© 

s© 

«© 

1        «© 

«© 

CN 

O    ■*    O    N    N    tO    tO 

© 

t^ 

co 

1         « 

ON 

^H 

£2 

T(l    H    CO    to    N    IN    "O 

■~! 

© 

§ 

© 

CN 

I> 

© 

iO 

CO    •*   CO    >0   N    lO 

<d 

00 

to 

iO 

to 

t^ 

© 

l--' 

c 

1-1 

"5    00    H    ^ 
«© 

© 

(N 
«© 

© 

1> 

CN 

© 

s© 

© 
CN 

© 

h  ai  h  oo  o  to  io 

© 

r^ 

OS 

1        © 

rH 

X 

CM    •*    IO    00    t~-    •*    00 

■* 

to 

OS 

00 

© 

IO 

00 

© 

§2 

iO 

©    >0    t>    ^'    CO    CO    <N 

oo 

OS 

00 

co 

00 

to 

CN 

<N 

© 

b-    00           <N 

© 

oo 

t^ 

CN 

00 

J> 

© 

5 

S© 

e© 

e© 

9© 

«© 

«© 

<N 

tO    IN    00    >0    00    CO    t 

© 

© 

CO 

CO 

00 

IO 

co  to  io  t>-  ©  to  >o 

■* 

CO 

co 

©■ 

© 

GO 

o 

2^ 

© 

H    N    tO    O    tO    N    H 

co 

00 

© 

00 

n! 

© 

co 

© 

h-    i-H    rH    N 

^ 

IN 

i> 

CN 

CN 

© 

to 

e©  m« 

(N 

«© 

CN 

C© 

CN 
1            6© 

CN 
6© 

CO 

oo  h  o  oo  «  a  w 

Tjl 

o 

Tt< 

1            ■<* 

Tt< 

© 

N    H    N    00    N    00    IO 

to 

o 

© 

<* 

(N 

© 

l^ 

© 

© 

o 

§2 

N    CO   N    CO    CO    CS    H 

CN 

© 

co 

§ 

00 

co 

■<* 

00 

8 

'O 

to    00            t-i    i-H 

© 

oo 

© 

<N 

oo 

© 

to 

«© 

«© 

m 

S© 

e© 

«© 

IN 

-*  Tt*  h  o  oo  ia  o 

CN 

ON 

'o 

© 

© 

^H 

CD    ON    0>    CO    00    ^    iO 

as 

t^ 

(N 

© 

© 

IN 

© 

© 

© 

§3 

© 

00 

N    H    N    M    tO    H    CO 

id 

© 

© 

id 

d 

o 

ION            i-l 

© 

>* 

IO 

<N 

Tt< 

co 

t>- 

iO 

«© 

€© 

«© 

«© 

«© 

«© 

<N 

CO    H    N    X    N    O)    M 

IO 

© 

iO 

iO 

© 

© 

O   fflOO    WOO   iO   o 

00 

i> 

l^ 

-* 

© 

■* 

00 

o 

S.a 

© 

© 

O    <-!   ^'   t^    I>    IN    CM 

© 

00 

<# 

Tfl 

© 

© 

00 

io  ©        cn  i-i 

© 

© 

© 

(N 

© 

1— 1 

t^ 

iO 

© 

«© 

6© 

e© 

«© 

m 

» 

CN 

O)    O)   O    N    N    iO    O) 

■* 

o 

r^ 

t* 

CN 

iO 

c8 
CN    00 

©  oo 

IN 

N    N    00    "O    iO   00   N 

iO 

CO 

(N 

CO 

IO 

00 

CN 

o 

N-'    b-i    Cd    00    -<t    rJH    00 

>d 

00 

t»' 

© 
00 

CO 

l> 

CO 

co 

© 

T*     00     I-H    CN     --I 

CO 

t^ 

iO 

t^ 

© 

© 

cc 

<©                   * 

m 

«© 

«© 

«© 

e© 

CN 

t^    00    i-l    Tt»    CN    CN    CN 

© 

iO 

,H 

,_( 

CN 

© 

CO    ■<#    -tf    CO    ©    to    00 

© 

IO 

"* 

O 

IO 

CO 

l> 

o 

1^ 

to 

CN 

IO    id    ©    ■*    00    CO    IO 

IN 

id 

t~ 

Ni 

*# 

co 

id 

IQ 

lO    00           CO 

© 

© 

© 

CO 

© 

00 

X 

«© 

<N 

«© 

«© 

«© 

8© 

c© 

(N 

M    ©    N    CO    iO    00    H 

CO 

© 

© 

© 

s 

© 

§s 

l>    CO    iO    ©    ©    CO    © 

r^ 

IO 

(N 

to 

8 

CN 

t^ 

CO 

© 

©    id   o"    ©    t^'    r-i    CO 

00     ©     IN     ©              rH 

oo 

t-- 

iO 

1> 

© 

t^ 

"* 

00 

00 

CO 

iO 

00 

CO 

iO 

co 

© 

I* 

e©  tn 

CN 

«© 

CN 
€© 

s© 

CN 

<s© 

CN 
6© 

CO 

io  oi  to  h  co  *  h 

00 

iO 

co 

co 

00 

IO 

CN    CN    ©    iO    ©    ■*    © 

Tj< 

00 

© 

>* 

"*    1 

© 

iO 

© 

o 

82 

CO 

t^ 

CN    CO    N    CO    N    Tf    CO 

■*' 

id 

00 

IO 

00 

© 

s 

© 

Tji 

CN    rt 

f^    O           •<*<    <N 

© 

Tt* 

oo 

TtH 

CN 

§ 

TP 

«©    .-H           * 

IN 

«© 

«© 

e© 

e© 

e© 

O    H     CS     'Jl     T)l     H     tO 

iO 

© 

© 

© 

CN 

i* 

CO    CO    (O   CN    IN    O    N 

o 

IN 

i> 

IN 

iO 

t^ 

© 

CO 

© 

00    ^ 
CN    rt 

© 

CN    CN 1    ©    —I    id    id    CN 

00 

•<*< 

CO 

IO 

CO 

^* 

© 

id 

■*' 

r^    O           CN    (N 

CO 
IN 

CO 

© 

CN 

© 

8 

o 

CN 

* 

00 

§ 

o 

6© 

e© 

«© 

«© 

CN      OS     ^     H     H     T(l     IO 

■*    ©    CO    ©    CO    "*    00 

© 

IO 

,_i 

,-1 

© 

iO 

t> 

© 

00 

co 

© 

00 

o 

l> 

o 

O 

IN    '""' 

CN 

00 

©    CN    CN    ©    !>■'    CN    --I 

■<* 

© 

t^ 

to 

t>- 

t^ 

8 

00 

©     OO     i-H     IO 

co 

t^ 

CN 

CN 

© 

e© 

CN 

«© 

CN 

«© 

€© 

CN 

e© 

<N 

s© 

CO 

iO    <N    i-H    CO    ©    ©    i-i 

,_, 

iO 

© 

II            ® 

© 

© 

IN    <N    i-H    CO    00    00    CN 

00 

l> 

© 

© 

iO                  O 

© 

CN 

o 

£  o 

CN    °* 

00 

CO 

■*'    rji    ©    id    -<*i    00    © 

CO 

to 

t^' 

iO 

t^ 

© 

© 

M* 

r^ 

iO    00    CN            i-l 

© 

00 

iO 

CO                   00 

t- 

© 

to 

6© 

s 

e© 

«©                          ^H 

II        «© 

«© 

<N 

M    lOOOOO    ION 

GO 

iO 

co 

II            CO 

IO 

00 

00   iO    o>    O   CS   N    -t 

<* 

■<* 

© 

<N 

CO                   © 

© 

© 

IO 

© 

<N        . 

iO 

© 

§s« 

O    O    O   t»    •*    (N 

t^ 

© 

r» 

CO 

t^ 

CO 

CO 

id 

© 

©   t>    <N    i-H 

t^ 

© 

© 

CN                   © 

iO 

<# 

W 

«© 

M 

w  II      3 

«• 

CO 

o  « 

IN    CO   N    iO   00   00    O 

© 

o> 

s 

© 

© 

,— I 

1>    ©    O    ©    GO    ©    © 

iO 

© 

© 

co 

© 

© 

iO 

© 

o 

.•    C  b- 

© 

Aver 

Disti 

41 

©    ©    CO    ©    ©    CO    CO 

© 

<N 

© 

t^. 

© 

id 

p 

g 

ION    H    H 

00 

t^ 

© 

CN 

t^ 

© 

t» 

6© 

s© 

«© 

«© 

e» 

s» 

<N 

:      :    cu 
•      :    bfi 

®      '■    M 
M     :    ™ 

^    a>  -a 

'H 

g 

II 

"o 

_J 

-a 

"3 

tn 

M 

3 

1 1 

a 

3 

c 

tn    ai    o3    m    cj 

°  13 

-d 

.a 

i—     o 

-C 

"3£ 

H 

Q^ 

«    h    o    d    fl 

•■S|  9-S  | 

1 1  i  1  -i 

a    a>   9    o   a" 
g  M  pq  O  H 

a 

03 

^ 

*s 

o    ft 

1 

is 

03 
> 

IS 

!« 

ft  a 

*  s 

o 

c 

I 

o 

6 

£    c 

8^ 

i 

1 Y 

M    i» 

Is  ^ 

O     S 

H 

a 
a 
B 

*o 

0 

1 

o 
ft 

CO 

'o 
"o 

*o 

c3 
0 

1 

1 

s 

(0 

■3  § 

3, 

! 

■x 

0 

fe 

o 

H  O 

» 

0 

^ 

C 

O 

BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0P  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         73 

average  production  of  -whole  milk,  and  seven  dairies  were  below  the  district  average 
butterfat  production. 

Prices  received  by  dairymen  in  this  group  depended  upon  the  character  of  the 
product  sold.  Dairies  confining  their  attention  to  sales  of  whole  milk  received 
sums  which,  averaged  for  the  period  that  cost  data  were  being  collected,  amounted 
to  $2.23  per  100  pounds,  or  to  55%  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat  contained  therein. 
During  the  year,  sales  of  dairy  products  delivered  as  butterfat  in  cream  brought 
average  net  prices  of  46  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat  to  the  dairymen  who  prac- 
ticed no  other  method  of  selling. 

Costs  of  production  by  Individual  Dairies 

Table  12  shows  the  cost  of  producing  butterfat  on  each  of  the  17 
dairies  studied  in  San  Joaquin  and  Stanislaus  counties.  The  data 
are  presented  on  a  one-cow  basis  for  ease  in  making  comparisons. 

Dairies  numbered  190  to  200  inclusive  are  in  San  Joaquin  County, 
those  numbered  282  to  292a  inclusive  are  in  Stanislaus  County. 

The  findings  show  that  the  cost  of  producing  butterfat  in  this 
district  ranged  from  a  low  of  31  cents  to  a  high  of  90  cents  per  pound 
of  butterfat  produced  on  the  individual  dairies.  Of  the  17  dairies, 
but  six  produced  at  a  cost  below  the  average  of  the  group  of  dairies 
studied  in  this  district,  i.e.,  60  cents  a  pound. 


6.    FRESNO    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Dairies  selected  in  Fresno  County  for  studying  costs  of  production 
were  located  in  the  dairying  section  along  the  southern  boundary  of 
the  county  and  included  two  dairies  in  Kings  County,  these  two  being 
found  sufficiently  similar  to  those  selected  in  Fresno  County  to  justify 
their  inclusion  in  a  common  group.  Seventeen  dairies  rounded  out 
the  year  of  record  taking  satisfactorily  and  were  included  in  the  final 
analyses.  Of  the  17,  7  were  located  near  Riverdale,  4  in  the  vicinity 
of  Laton,  3  at  Burrell,  and  1  each  at  Caruthers,  Hanford,  and  Guern- 
sey. All  records  were  taken  for  the  calendar  year  from  January  1, 
1922,  to  January  1,  1923.  Dairying  constituted  the  principal  enter- 
prise on  the  farms  coming  under  this  study. 

In  size,  the  different  holdings  varied  from  35  to  312  acres  with  a 
general  average  of  107  acres.  The  major  portion  of  the  land  was 
cropped,  although  some  salt  grass  pasture  was  maintained.  The 
cropped  areas  were  under  irrigation  and  were  mostly  utilized  for 
alfalfa,  fed  as  hay  or  pastured  green,  with  minor  areas  of  oats,  barley, 
sorghum,    some    silage    and    similar    crops.      Outside    of    salt    grass 


74  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

pastures,  all  pasturing  was  furnished  by  crops  grown  specifically  for 
the  purpose  on  irrigated  and  cultivated  fields.  Every  one  of  the  17 
dairies  reported  alfalfa  acreage. 

In  feeding  the  milking  herd,  pasture  and  alfalfa  hay  were  chiefly 
used.  Some  dairymen  used  no  concentrates  and  others  who  did  were 
inclined  to  eliminate  their  use  when  the  pastures  were  good  or  the 
cows  not  up  to  full  production.  A  little  barley  hay,  oat  hay,  and 
Sudan  grass  hay  was  fed.  Sorghum  was  grown  to  some  extent  for 
pasture  and  for  silage.  Concentrates,  when  fed,  were  made  up  of 
barley,  coconut  meal,  beet  pulp,  middlings,  molasses,  cottonseed  meal, 
molasses  screenings,  alfalfa-molasses  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  meal, 
corn,  and  bran.  Of  the  17  dairies,  three  fed  concentrates  consistently 
throughout  the  year  and  six  for  various  periods  ranging  from  3  to  9 
months.  Eleven  used  pasture  the  year  round,  one  for  2  months,  four 
for  8  to  10  months,  leaving  but  a  single  dairyman  who  possessed  no 
pasture.  Five  dairymen  made  use  of  silage,  and  two  of  green 
sorghum.  The  pastures  were  generally  of  two  kinds,  salt  grass  and 
Bermuda  grass  being  utilized  to  some  extent  for  dry  stock,  while 
irrigated  fields  were  maintained  for  the  milking  cows.  These  irri- 
gated pastures  were  mostly  alfalfa,  although  within  a  few  years  after 
planting,  foxtail  and  wild  oats  creep  in,  both  furnishing  good  pasture 
while  tender  and  green. 

The  total  number  of  cows  in  the  17  herds  averaged  767  for  the 
year,  ranging  from  two  herds  of  16  cows  each  to  a  herd  of  103.  The 
average  was'  45,  with  two  herds  of  23  and  29,  five  of  from  31  to  36, 
three  of  41  to  47,  two  of  62  and  66,  and  one  each  of  71  and  84.  The 
total  number  of  bulls  averaged  20. 

With  the  exception  of  two  dairies  the  Holstein  was  the  only  breed 
reported.  One  of  the  two  exceptions  reported  Holsteins  and  some 
Jerseys,  the  other  consisted  of  Shorthorns.  Three  dairies  were  made 
up  entirely  of  purebred  Holsteins,  one  herd  of  the  three  being  entirely 
registered.  In  addition  to  these  three,  ten  additional  herds  were 
headed  by  registered  bulls,  nine  of  them  Holsteins,  the  tenth  failing 
to  report  the  breed.  Three  of  the  17  dairies  possessed  registered  Hoi- 
st mi  eows.  This  gave  the  dairies  covered  by  the  study  a  total  of  16 
registered  bulls,  62  registered  cows,  and  16  purebred  cows  not  regis- 
tered. Hence  80  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  bulls  were  registered 
and  10  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  cows  either  registered  or 
purebred. 

Cows  were  bred  to  calf  at  any  time  throughout  the  year,  feed  and 
Labor  conditions  making  the  maintaining  of  a  full  milking  string  both 
feasible  and  desirable. 


BULLETIN  372]       COST  OF  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         75 

Milking  was  commonly  clone  at  12-hour  intervals,  usually  at  3,  4, 
or  5  in  the  morning  and  again  at  the  corresponding  hour  in  the  after- 
noon. One  dairyman  milked  at  1 :30;  another  at  2  :30;  while  one  man 
had  his  milking  done  at  7  a.m.  and  6  p.m.  Eight  dairymen  used  milk- 
ing machines  and  nine  practiced  hand  milking. 

Four  nationalities  were  represented  in  this  group  of  dairymen, 
there  being  twelve  Americans,  two  Danish,  a  Swiss- American,  a  Swiss, 
and  a  Hollander.  Nationalities  of  milkers  employed  on  these  dairies 
included  Americans,  Portuguese,  Danish,  Hollanders,  Swiss,  and 
Italians. 

Sales  of  both  whole  milk  and  butterfat  in  cream  were  reported. 
During  the  year  these  17  dairies  made  sales  to  the  Riverdale  Cooper- 
ative Creamery;  Jersey  Farm  Dairy  Company,  Fresno;  Portuguese 
Dairymen's  Association  at  Hub;  Hall's  Dairy  and  Swift's  Creamery 
at  Hanford ;  Danish  Creamery,  Fresno ;  Central  California  Cream- 
eries Company;  Kings  County  Creamers;  Lucerne  Creamery,  Han- 
ford; and  the  Los  Angeles  Creamery  Company.  By-products,  when 
available,  were  utilized  in  the  feeding  of  calves  and  hogs,  nine  of  these 
dairies  reporting  such  use  of  their  skimmilk. 

Sixteen  of  the  17  men  included  in  this  study  owned  the  land  they 
were  operating,  the  other  was  a  tenant  farmer. 


Summary  of  Costs 

The  summarized  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  on 
the  17  dairies  studied  in  Fresno  County  is  set  forth,  with  considerable 
detail  in  table  13,  which  follows. 


76  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

TABLE   13 
Cost   of   Milk   Production   Summary — Fresno    County 

Number  of  dairies 17 

Number  of  cows 767 

Number  of  bulls 20 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  97,030  hours $29,977.20 

Man — management 7,995.02 

Horse,  11,922  hours 1,170.53 

Insurance 33.75 

Gross  labor  cost $39,176.50 

Credits 1.65 

Net  labor  cost $39,174.85 

Feed 

Pasture $5,680.95 

Hay,  2,988.3  tons 39,849.50 

Concentrates,  267.5  tons 8,924.51 

Silage,  573  tons 3,842.50 

Green  sorghum,  442  tons 1,428.00 

Insurance 256.80 

Total  feed  costs 59,982.26 

Hauling  milk  and  cream 5,327.81 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 2,612.98 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $3,569  @  6% 214.14 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle, 

$108,068.82  @  6% $6,484.13 

Depreciation 379.96 

Mortality:  37  cows,  $4,110;  1  bull,  $1,800 5,910.00 

Taxes 901.22 

Gross  herd  charge $13,675.31 

Credits 300.00 

Net  herd  charge 13,375.31 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $30,790.75  @  6%      $1,847.44 

Depreciation 1,783.00 

Upkeep 536.70 

Taxes 212.45 

Insurance 121.37 

Total  buildings  charge 4,500.96 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes $324.50 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $6,563.12 

@6% 393.78 

Depreciation  of  improvements 312.25 

Upkeep ' 155.00 

Total  corral  charge 1,185.53 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         77 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $8,680.67  @  6%         $520.84 

Depreciation :...        2,722.85 

Upkeep 590.70 

Taxes 33.36 

Total  equipment  charge 3,867.75 

Total  gross  cost 130,241.59 

Credits 

Calves,  618 $5,713.00 

Manure 2,683.00 

Total  credits $8,396.00 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $121,845.59 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 5,209,994  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2.34 

Total  production  of  butterf at 182,543.92  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 66.7  cents 

Total  cost  of  butterfat  in  cream 

Cost  of  whole  milk $121,845.59 

Credit  for  skimmilk,  47,408.31  hundredweight  @  25  cents  per 

100  pounds 11,852.08 

Cost  of  butterfat  in  cream $109,993.51 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  cream 60.2  cents 

.                        .         ,     ,.  /  6793  pounds  of  whole  milk 

Average  annual  prodnetion  per  eow j  fflM  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  herds  included  in  this  study  were  assessed  for  $22,950.  Dairy  buildings 
were  assessed  as  a  part  of  the  total  building  equipment,  so  that  an  estimate  had 
to  be  made  of  the  portion  chargeable  against  the  dairy.  This  proportion  amounted 
on  an  average  to  approximately  50  per  cent,  ranging  from  20  to  70  per  cent  for 
the  individual  dairies  and  amounting  to  an  assessment  of  $5525.  Dairy  fixtures 
were  assessed  for  a  total  of  $880.  The  tax  rate  per  $100  of  assessed  value  .ranged 
from  $3.04  to  $5.41,  depending  upon  the  location  of  the  dairy. 

All  but  three  of  the  dairymen  reported  the  payment  of  premiums  for  buildings 
insurance,  one  carried  employer's  liability  insurance,  and  seven  insured  feed. 
Totals  were  $121.37  for  building  insurance,  $33.75  for  workmen's  compensation, 
and  $256.80  for  feed. 

The  average  cost  of  man  labor  spent  in  producing  the  dairy  output  on  these 
17  farms  amounted  to  30.9  cents  an  hour.  All  dairymen  placed  a  value  upon  the 
amount  of  time  spent  in  management,  the  total  amounting  to  $7995.02,  or  over 
26  per  cent  of  the  sum  spent  for  manual  labor. 

Horse  labor  used  in  connection  with  the  dairy  varied  in  cost  from  5.2  to  46.0 
cents  per  hour,  or  an  average  of  9.8  cents.  All  dairymen  reported  the  use  of 
horses  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  their  dairies. 

Neither  automobiles  nor  trucks  were  used  by  these  dairymen  in  handling  their 
output. 

During  the  year  the  average  costs  for  feeds  amounted  to:  Pasture  $4.63  an 
acre  or  $8.03  per  cow  per  year  for  those  who  pastured,  hay  $13.33  a  ton,  concen- 
trates $34.11,  silage  $6.71,  green  sorghum  $3..23. 


78  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

A  number  of  dairymen  and  one  cooperative  creamery  held  that  no  hauling 
charge  was  paid,  but  it  certainly  costs  money  to  move  milk  and  cream  from  the 
farm  to  the  point  of  acceptance  by  a  buyer.  Either  the  dairyman  pays  this  charge 
directly  in  cash,  or  else  he  pays  it  indirectly  by  a  reduction  made  in  quoting  him 
prices  and  in  making  returns  to  him  for  his  product.  Using  all  available  data, 
therefore,  a  figure  was  determined  that  apparently  fairly  represents  this  charge, 
and  this  figure  was  used  whenever  hauling  details  were  lacking.  This  serves  to 
place  the  findings  of  this  district  on  a  footing  with  the  results  for  other  sections, 
thus  making  the  deductions  comparable.  The  figure  finally  determined  amounted 
to  a  hauling  charge  of  18  cents  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk  or  1  cent  per 
pound  of  butterfat  sold  as  cream.  This  same  charge  was  also  added  in  getting 
at  average  prices  paid,  so  that  a  proper  balance  has  been  maintained.  In  the 
event  that  the  dairyman  did  his  own  hauling,  no  additional  charge  was  made,  since 
the  cost  was  then  covered  under  the  totals  shown  for  man  and  horse  labor.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  though,  practically  no  deliveries  were  made  in  this  way,  and  the 
contract  hauling  charge  covered  about  all  the  total  production. 

Miscellaneous  expenses  for  supplies,  fuel,  cow  testing,  and  other  items  ranged 
from  $11.75  to  $372.00,  with  an  average  of  $154  per  dairy.  The  total  monthly 
need  for  operating  capital  amounted  to  $3569  for  the  17  dairies. 

The  average  value  of  the  milking  cows  amounted  to  close  to  $145,  the  bulls 
to  about  $350.  In  range,  cow  values  rose  from  an  average  of  $75  for  one  herd 
to  an  average  of  $401.25  for  the  highest  valued  herd.  Seven  dairymen  valued 
their  herds  at  $100  per  head  or  less,  while  three  set  values  of  $250,  $350,  and 
$401.25  per  head  respectively.  The  rest  ranged  between  these  two  groups,  from 
$120  to  $182.50  per  head.  Bull  values  per  head  ranged  from  $55  to  $1800.  One 
dairyman  bought  a  bull  for  $400  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  and  reported  a 
second  inventory  value  of  $5000  at  the  end  of  the  year.  If  this  great  appreciation 
had  been  included  in  its  entirety,  the  paper  profits  on  the  bull  account  would 
have  been  out  of  proportion,  since  much  of  the  value  in  this  bull  lies  in  his 
future  performances.  During  the  year  under  observation,  this  bull  was  responsible 
for  only  one-fourth  of  the  number  of  calves  dropped  during  the  twelve  months 
covered  by  the  study.  It  therefore  seems  fair  to  allow  one-fourth  of  the  increase 
in  value  as  applying  to  the  year's  business.  This  method  brought  the  average 
investment  more  in  line  with  the  actual  facts.  The  investment  in  cows  amounted 
to  a  little  less  than  93  per  cent  of  the  total  invested  in  cows  and  bulls. 

Ten  of  the  17  dairymen  reported  cow  appreciation  aggregating  $5064.50  and 
two  bull  appreciation  totaling  $340  during  the  year.  The  remainder  reported 
depreciation  to  the  extent  of  $3946.46  for  cows  and  $1838  for  bulls.  For  the 
district,  the  net  herd  depreciation  amounted  to  $379.96  or  about  %0  of  1  per  cent 
of  the  investment. 

Thirty-seven  cows  died  of  the  767  average  herd  number,  or  nearly  5  per  cent. 
The  total  value  was  placed  at  $4110,  or  $110.09  per  cow.  Dying  cows  were  there- 
fore equal  in  value  to  76  per  cent  of  the  general  herd  average.  Only  one  bull 
was  reported  as  dying,  his  value  being  placed  at  $1800. 

Buildings  for  the  milking  herd  consisted  of  a  milking  barn  and  milkhouse  for 
each  dairy,  with  an  extra  milking  barn  on  one  of  the  ranches,  and  seven  silos. 
The  investment  in  dairy  buildings  varied  from  $141  to  $4000,  with  an  average 
investment  of  $1811.  Ten  dairies  possessed  less  than  the  average  value  in  build- 
ings.    Building  depreciation  totaled  $1783  or  5.4  per  cent  of  the  investment. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       79 

Twelve  dairymen  spent  money  for  upkeep  of  dairy  buildings,  ranging  from 
$3  to  $175,  totaling  $536.70,  and  averaging  $31.57.  This  was  1.4  per  cent  of  the 
building  investment. 

Land  required  for  corrals  and  dairy  building  sites  totaled  48.5  acres,  having 
a  rental  value  of  $324.50,  or  $6.69  per  acre.  The  investment  in  improvements 
amounted  to  $6563.12,  or  $386.01  average  per  dairy.  Depreciation  ran  up  to 
$312.25,  or  about  5  per  cent  of  the  average  investment.  Six  dairymen  spent  money 
on  upkeep  of  corrals  and  building  sites,  ranging  from  $5  to  $80,  and  totaling  $155, 
or  slightly  over  2  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

These  17  dairies  reported  dairying  equipment  ranging  from  $21  to  $1176  and 
totaling  $8680.67  in  value,  the  average  for  the  17  dairies  being  $510.62.  The 
largest  single  item  of  equipment  was  due  to  investment  in  milking  machines,  of 
which  there  were  eight,  amounting  to  $4735  of  the  total,  according  to  the  average 
values  of  the  two  inventories.  Other  equipment  reported  consisted  of  19  milk 
coolers,  16  sterilizers,  13  milk  tanks,  17  separators,  8  wheelbarrows,  9  milk  carts, 
2  sleds,  1  manure  carrier,  1  feed  cart,  1  milk  tester,  2  gasoline  engines,  2  electric 
motors,  1  scales,  1  hay  carrier,  2  spray  pumps,  3  water  heaters,  235  milk  cans,  74 
milk  pails,  and  a  miscellaneous  assortment  of  strainers,  hose,  brooms,  brushes, 
shovels,  forks,  lanterns,  scrapers,  stools,  and  bull  staff. 

Depreciation  of  this  equipment  amounted  to  $2722. 85,  or  41.4  per  cent  of  the 
average  investment.  All  dairymen  found  it  necessary  to  expend  funds  on  upkeep 
of  dairy  equipment  in  amounts  ranging  from  $3.50  to  $164.85,  totaling  $590.70, 
and  averaging  for  these  dairies  $34.74  for  the  year.  Upkeep  amounted  to  almost 
7  per  cent  of  the  investment  in  equipment. 

Other  than  the  sale  of  feed  sacks  to  the  extent  of  $83,  a  $1.65  return  for  out- 
side labor,  and  $300  received  for  bull  service,  no  miscellaneous  returns  creditable 
against  the  dairies  were  obtained.  The  credit  for  sacks  was  deducted  from  the 
cost  of  concentrates ;  the  herd  credit  shows  under  ' '  Herd  Charge ' '  in  the  summary 
table;  the  small  item  of  labor  credit  likewise  appears  under  the  heading  of 
"Labor"  in  the  summary  table. 

The  usual  credits  to  be  given  the  dairies  for  calves,  manure,  and  skimmilk, 
included  $2683  for  manure,  the  output  being  claimed  of  value  by  all  but  one  dairy- 
man, although  the  rate  of  value  varied  by  wide  extremes  from  a  low  of  50  cents 
per  ton  to  a  high  of  $4.  Six  hundred  eighteen  calves  were  deemed  to  have  a  value 
ranging  from  $2  to  $47,  and  amounting  in  all  to  $5713.  Fourteen  of  the  17  dairy- 
men figured  the  calves  as  being  worth  not  to  exceed  $7  per  head  for  all  saved  for 
vealing  or  weaning.  Available  skimmilk  was  variously  estimated  to  be  worth 
from  10  cents  to  35  cents  per  100  pounds,  with  a  general  average  of  23  cents. 
Twelve  of  the  17  dairymen  set  the  value  of  their  skimmilk  at  from  20  to  30  cents 
per  100  pounds.  Total  available  skimmilk  from  all  milk  produced  amounted  to 
4,740,831  pounds,  which  at  25  cents  per  hundred  pounds  possessed  a  value  of 
nearly  $12,000. 

Of  the  17  dairies,  5  sold  whole  milk  on  a  butterfat  basis,  8  confined  their  atten- 
tion to  the  sale  of  butterfat  in  cream,  while  the  remaining  4  sold  on  a  butterfat 
price  basis  both  whole  milk  and  butterfat  in  cream.  Of  the  total  sales  45  per  cent 
went  as  whole  milk,  and  55  per  cent  as  cream.  Of  total  production,  which  includes 
milk  used  in  the  home  or  on  the  ranch,  sales  constituted  83.1  per  cent. 

The  average  records  of  production  made  by  the  767  cows  covered  by  this 
study  amounted  to  6793  pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow  per  year,  testing  from  3.2 
to  3.9  per  cent  butterfat,  and  equivalent  to  237.8  pounds  of  butterfat  a  year.     The 


80 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.    10. — Various   types   of  milking   barns.      Near   Eiverdale   in   the   Fresno 
County  section.      (Photographs  by  L.  R.  Ward.) 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat       81 


Fig.  10. —  (Continued.) 


I       <° 

s 

so 

•*    00    © 

CO 

© 

•  CO 

■1        » 

<N 

rH 

O)    h    00    iO    (D   N    00 

CO 

CO 

© 

© 

CO 

© 
© 

© 

l> 

CO 

y-< 

CO 

05    r- 

O*    d    **    00*    CM*    ■*    b-' 

© 

id 

rH 

rH 

00 

CN 

0 

id 

Ol    N    H    00    N 

© 

© 

00 

z 

© 

l>. 

© 

CN 

63   rH 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

CN 

63 

€© 

1             63 

63 

"5   O   00   N    M    O)   CO 

iO 

CO 

CN 

1             cN 

co 

8 

t-i    CM    I>    t>    rH    i-h    O 

CN 

o 

CN 

co 

iO 

CN 

CN 

CN 

00   CO 
t~-    CO 

CO'    CD    TjJ    CN    CO    CO    CO 

©' 

05 

© 

© 
© 

© 

d 

■* 

id 

CN 

00 

h00HO)H 

CN 

© 

© 

•     CO 

© 

CN 

© 

t^ 

© 

63    rH              -H 

"*l 
63 

co 

m 

1      Si 

co 

63 

CO 

M    OOONO    «5H 
Tt<    00    00    lO    CN    lO    ■* 

!>• 

CN 

iO 

1              lO 

CM 

co 

CN 

© 

rH 

© 

© 

CO 

t-    © 

■*    CO 

00    ©    CM             CN             r-i 

id 

© 

id 

CN 

■>* 

1 

1                 "5 

«d 

© 

© 

CN 

TH   O    r-l   # 

b- 

© 

© 

CN 

cc 

10 

■* 

© 

^^ 

m 

m 

m 

Si 

63 

(N 

1                  ^lONOHHH 

T* 

lO 

© 

© 

© 

8 

CM    •*    lO    CO    CO    CO    O 

t>. 

ID 

© 

t- 

IO 

CO 

lO 

CO     ^H 
Tt*     CO 

lO    O    1(5   N    ffl    H    O 

© 

© 

© 

CN 

lO 

o 

o 

•«* 

id 

© 

t^ 

IO     O     rH     rH                        rH 

o 

o 

© 

CO 

° 

00 

CO 

l> 

63  ih 

<N 

CN 

m 

CN 

CN 

m 

m 

1              63 

1     63 

iO    CO    ©    ©    CM    ©    rH 

© 

lO 

TH 

1             •* 

© 

00 

CD    O    1/5   N    tO   00    tO 

© 

I> 

© 

IO 

© 

© 

l> 

O 

N- 

T*4     rH 

lO    ©    CO    05   <N           CN 

00 

id 

CN 

co 

t^ 

CN 

"* 

00 

■* 

•rji    rt<           i-i 

© 

© 

CN 

■>* 

63 

m 

m 

63 

Si 

63 

CN 

CO    MN    HO    OS    W 

00 

co 

lO 

1              "5 

IO 

O 

©    CN    r-l    GO    CO    lO    05 

© 

CO 

r> 

CO 

l> 

© 

00 

© 

CN    O- 

TfH     CN 

CD    ©    CO    ©    H    CN    CO 

«^ 

CO 

eo 

<* 

CO 

CO 

© 

l> 

t~ 

00 

^OOrHrHrH 

i> 

i^ 

t^ 

CN 

I> 

lO 

© 

10 

63 

CM 

m 

m 

Si 

63 

N   OJ   N   N    to   lO   N 

00 

CO 

lO 

1         ^ 

© 

© 

O    M    O    H   ^    lO    lO 

^-< 

© 

rH 

CN 

© 

© 

CN 

00 

CN 

© 

CN 

rH     © 

■HI  rH 

lO    ■*'    OS   ©    ■*'    CO    00 
©   ■*           CN 

id 

CO 

t^ 

i^ 

cc 

CO 

CN 

© 

8 

00 

© 

© 

CO 

© 

CO 

00 

63    rH 

63 

(N 

1 

63 

m 

1        Si 

6* 

t-  ©  o  ©  ©  b-  © 

-^ 

rH 

CO 

1              M 

IO 

00 

lO    CN    CM    CO    lO    ■**    OS 

© 

CO 

co 

-* 

© 

CO 

IO 

t^ 

00 

O 

05    !> 

CO   © 

id    id    CO    CO i    ■*    CO    iH 

d 

CO 

i> 

© 
CO 

-* 

t^ 

© 

s 

© 

r*I 

.a*- 

© 

t> 

© 

© 

CO 

63 

63 

CN 

e© 

« 

s? 

U5N    00O5    tD    h    lO 

lO 

CN 

co 

1              M 

l^ 

© 

N    rt    H    (N    CD   N    M 

© 

t^ 

CO 

00 

© 

CO 

IO 

t- 

O 

© 

00    ifl 
CO    CO 

CD    -N    Tji    l>    CN       '    CN 

CO 

rn' 

Tt 

© 

00 

© 

"* 

id 

00 

© 

CO 

lO    to           CN 

iO 

"4 

© 

(N 

rft 

CN 

■* 

IO 

m 

s 

Si 

63 

Si 

63 

CN 

1             ©    CD    ©    CO    CN    H    CN 

rH 

© 

rH 

1                   rH 

§ 

rH 

iO   N   00    U5    lO    i<    CO 

CO 

CN 

1-1 

t^ 

CN 

Tj< 

t-H 

00 

b-    CO 
CO    CM 

lO     CO    CN     ©              1-i     rH 

>d 

© 

CO 
CN 

CN 

© 

CN 

m 

CO 

CN 

3' 

g 

i 

CM 

co 

63 

93 

Si 

63 

6© 

tO   N    W   fl    IN    N    H 

00 

1> 

rH 

I              i-< 

•<t 

t> 

CO    CN    00    ID    CN    X    CN 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

<# 

© 

CO 

©  CN 

jj     CO     H     T)J     H     H     115 

CN 

© 

CO 

© 

a 

CO 

a 

■*' 

© 

© 

Tj*     ^     N     N     H 

CO 

l> 

IO 

00 

iO 

CO 

© 

tH 

m  h       * 

CN 

63 

S3 

63 

1         Si 

63 

CN 

©    CD    CN    CN    ©    lO    © 

■  © 

ID 

Tf< 

1         ■* 

i> 

I> 

CO    ©     ©     ■*     ©    b-     rH 

b- 

00 

© 

tH 

t^ 

© 

■* 

Tf< 

00 

co 

iO    CO 

CO    tH 

b-'    ©    id    ©   CN    CN    CM 

©    ©          * 

s 

00 

| 

© 

© 

t^ 

§ 

© 

CN 

© 

© 

^ 

^ 

6© 

6% 

63 

Si 

1         Si 

63 

co 

t-    iO    ©    ■*    r-    CN    © 

CO 

CN 

rH 

1         '-< 

© 

CN 

©    CO    tJH    CO    lO    i-H    © 

CN 

t^ 

10 

t> 

CN 

10 

<N 

CN 

CO 

© 

CO  2 

© 

■<* 

K3   OMN       '           CN 

s 

CN 

t^ 

TH 

1         » 

CN 

id 

co 

HM 

t- 

iO 

^ 

© 

© 

CO 

63 

m 

Si 

63 

63 

CO    CN    O    l>    ©    CO    © 

CO 

CN 

r-t 

1             i-< 

00 

CO 

H    00   M    H    •*    ^    1(5 

00 

00 

© 

i— I 

00 

o 

00 

CO 

© 

o  rH 

CO    CO 

00    lO    N    O    ■*    H    CO 

00 

CN 

© 

CO 

© 

© 

I> 

06 

•<* 

r)< 

T*     rH    CN     i-l 

© 

© 

I> 

ex 

© 

l> 

t^ 

© 

63    r-l 

CN 

63 

m 

63 

Si 

63 

CN 

-H<     ©     "HH     -HH     rH     C55    CO 

rH 

© 

rH 

II        ^ 

t^ 

T« 

©     "rjl     ©    "^     ©     Tt<     rH 

CO 

*# 

© 

o 

CN 

© 

CN 

© 

00 

05    t* 
CM    00 

©    CN    00    ©    CO           CO 

© 

rn' 

00 

1 

1> 

oc 

"* 

■*' 

© 

CO 

>C    CN           CM 

© 

c 

© 

Tjl 

63 

63 

Si 

Si 

63 

63 

CM 

CO     rH     CN     ©     ©     00     rH 

■HI 

© 

10 

iO 

10 

© 

CN     ©     IO    rH     Tt<     CN     © 

■>*< 

CN 

t^ 

■<# 

O 

Tj< 

Tjl 

b-  h- 

CM    Tj* 

■*'    05   CN    CN    00    r-i    CD 

CN 

CN 

© 

IO 
CN 

CM 

3 

T(H 

© 

© 

© 

(D     lO    H    *                               . 

US 

TH 

© 

CN 

^-1 

CN 

O 

© 

63 

m 

CN 

6© 

m 

s> 

6© 

a    CO    rH    lO    Tf    iO   ^ 

b- 

,-^ 

© 

i    © 

CO 

CO 

CO    CM 

cn  co 

9.5 
0.2 
2.1 
6.0 
5.1 
1.1 
5.3 

© 
© 

© 

CO 

s 

»> 
n 

CO 

lO 

00 

CO     rH     rH                                  ^ 

00 

oc 

iO 

co 

0C 

^ 

t^ 

© 

SO     r-i 

63 

m 

m 

6© 

6© 

■M 

■hi    iO    CO    CO    ©    iO    T* 

© 

TH 

CC 

I              CC 

T« 

CN 

O 

O    H    to    hi    OO    «5    O 

b- 

© 

t> 

co 

■* 

1> 

T}l 

CO 

00 

CN 

•  ■+£  b» 

© 

CO 

l-i      «l    <£ 

rH     00    ©     t>^     lO     rH     ID 

© 

© 

oc 

l> 

oc 

ifl 

co 

N- 

d 

£Q^ 

iONhh 

© 

IO 

© 

CN 

10 

•Hi. 

co 

© 

vt 

/ 

(N 

<>1 

m 

S3 

1             63 

63 

:    0) 

"o     i 
-0 

t  4 

o   c 

■r> 

t 

charge . 

arge 

rit  charg 

8 

o 

o 

r«H 

*o 

CO 

> 

rQ 

0  0 

0  42 

1! 

c 
'5 

* 

.  'c 
c 

he 
I*2 

Minor  ite 
Herd  cha 
Buildings 
Corral  ch 
Equipmei 

CO 

s 

Ih 
M 

"o 

1       *> 

Is 

"o 

to 

O      J* 

-r5       E 

fl       r-f 

il 

a  c 
1^ 

IS  £ 

03      r« 

■al 

1^ 

-2 

8 
18 

(H         O 

'■+3   +j 

2  -r> 

0  +r 
a  g. 

<U      CD 

a  +5 
grQ 

c 

!z 

o 

H  O 

r? 

£ 

V 

1  & 

0 

Z  A 

O 

Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT        83 

highest  herd  average  ran  10,693  pounds  of  whole  milk,  or  372.1  pounds  of  butter- 
fat.  This  was  a  herd  of  33  cows.  The  lowest  whole  milk  record  made  by  any  of 
these  herds  was  an  average  of  5261  pounds,  the  lowest  average  butterfat  production 
being  177.5  pounds.  Scanned  from  the  standpoint  of  butterfat  production,  three 
herds  averaged  less  than  200  pounds  of  butterfat  per  cow  per  year,  twelve  from 
209.4  to  297.1  pounds,  and  two  over  300  pounds,  these  producing  316.8  and  372.1 
pounds  respectively. 

Figured  from  actual  sales  of  both  whole  milk  and  cream  made  by  these  17 
dairies,  the  gross  receipts,  that  is  with  the  hauling  charge  included,  averaged  for 
the  year  62.5  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat  sold  in  cream.  A  price  of  $2.27  per 
100  pounds  was  received  for  a  portion  of  the  milk  sold  for  retailing. 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

In  the  following  table  are  presented  the  data  for  each  individual 
dairy,  including  the  general  average  for  the  17  dairies  included  in 
this  study.  Costs  vary  within  rather  wide  limits  as  between  dairies 
and  also  in  contrast  with  the  community  average.  These  facts  can 
be  noted  in  the  table  which  sets  forth  the  findings  on  a  basis  of  the 
average  per  cow. 

The  range  of  production  costs  were  from  a  low  of  $1.37  a  hundred- 
weight of  milk  and  32.8  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat,  to  a  high  of  $4.69 
a  hundred  pounds  of  milk  and  $1.25  a  pound  of  butterfat.  The  dis- 
trict average  was  $2.34  a  hundred  pounds  of  milk  and  60.2  cents  a 
pound  of  butterfat.  Eight  of  the  17  dairymen  produced  at  a  cost 
lower  than  the  district  average. 

With  the  exception  of  dairies  numbered  78  and  79,  which  are  in 
Kings  County  all  are  in  Fresno  County. 


7.    KERN    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Fifteen  dairymen  supplied  data  in  sufficient  and  satisfactory  detail 
to  permit  their  inclusion  in  the  final  summing  up  of  this  district.  All 
records  ran  from  January  1,  1922,  to  January  1,  1923.  The  15 
dairies  were  selected  as  representative  of  the  dairying  industry  in  the 
county,  two  being  located  near  McFarland,  two  at  Wasco,  while  the 
remainder  were  contiguous  to  Bakersfield  although  situated  within 
a  radius  of  several  miles  to  the  south,  southeast,  and  southwest  of  the 
town.  Dairying  constituted  the  major  enterprise  on  these  farms, 
farming  activities  being  carried  on  primarily  to  furnish  feed  for 
the  dairies. 

In  size,  the  holdings  ranged  from  321/2  to  320  acres.  Four  of  the 
holdings  were  40  acres  or  under  in  size,  3  between  40  and  79  acres, 
5  between  80  and  159  acres,  and  3  between  160  and  320  acres.     The 


84  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

lands  consisted  mostly  of  level,  irrigated  lands,  utilized  for  the  grow- 
ing of  alfalfa  with  some  grain,  silage  crops  and  Sudan  grass.  There 
was  a  small  amount  of  pasture  obtainable  from  salt  grass,  swamp, 
and  wild  grass,  but  generally  the  method  tended  toward  the  use  of  all 
available  land  for  alfalfa  and  other  farmed  crops.  Every  dairy 
reported  alfalfa  acreage  with  all  other  crops  supplementary. 

In  feeding  the  milking  herd  the  greatest  reliance  was  placed  upon 
alfalfa  as  hay  and  as  pasture.  A  little  barley  hay  was  used,  and  a 
limited  amount  of  concentrates,  the  latter  consisting  of  barley,  mid- 
dlings, mill  feed,  corn,  beet  pulp,  cottonseed,  and  bran.  Limited  use 
was  made  of  salt  grass,  wild  grass,  Sudan  grass,  and  grain  stubble, 
with  fodder,  silage,  and  pumpkins  occasionally  fed.  Of  the  15  dairies, 
5  relied  upon  hay  and  pasture  from  alfalfa  as  their  sole  feeds,  3  upon 
alfalfa  hay  and  pasture  and  corn  silage,  2  added  a  limited  amount 
of  concentrates  to  their  hay,  pasture,  and  silage,  2  some  concentrates 
to  their  hay  and  pasture,  3  utilized  alfalfa  for  hay  and  pasture,  supple- 
mented with  a  small  amount  of  concentrates  and  occasional  amounts 
of  fodder  or  pumpkins.  Generally  hay,  silage,  fodder,  pumpkins,  and 
concentrates  were  used  when  the  pasture  was  short.  During  the  sum- 
mer months,  May,  June,  July,  and  August,  feeds  supplementary  to 
pasture  were  discontinued  where  such  curtailment  was  practiced. 
Of  the  15  dairies,  however,  9  supplied  supplementary  feeds  in  addi- 
tion to  pasture  for  11  or  12  months,  3  for  8  months,  2  for  6  or  7 
months,  1  for  4  months.  Pasturage  is  a  year-round  practice  with  6 
of  these  15  dairymen,  6  others  utilizing  pasture  for  from  9  to  11 
months,  and  1  each  for  2,  5,  and  7  months  respectively.  Thus,  all  15 
dairymen  secured  pasture  in  addition  to  hay,  concentrates  and  feeds 
other  than  pasture. 

The  15  herds  ranged  in  size  from  10  to  77  head,  and  totaled  599 
cows.  Eight  dairies  possessed  between  10  and  35  head,  and  7  dairies 
from  47  to  77  head.  The  average  for  all  the  15  dairies  was  40  cows, 
and  iy2  bulls. 

The  Holstein  is  apparently  the  favorite  breed  in  this  district,  9 
dairies  possessing  only  Holsteins,  2  mostly  Holsteins,  while  1  each 
possessed  Guernsey  or  grade  Jersey,  with  2  reporting  ' '  mixed ' '  cattle. 
There  were  3  registered  bulls  found  on  the  15  dairies,  all  Holsteins, 
and  5  more  eligible  to  registery,  these  5  consisting  of  2  Guernseys, 
1  Jersey,  and  2  Holsteins.  Hence  8  out  of  a  total  of  23  bulls  used  on 
these  dairies  were  purebred.  One  purebred  cow,  a  Guernsey,  was 
reported. 

On  these  dairies,  cows  are  bred  to  provide  so  far  as  possible  an 
equal  number  of  milking  cows  regularly  throughout  all  months  of 


Bulletin  372]       C0ST  0F  PBODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         85 

the  year,  hence  calves  were  dropped  during  all  months.  In  reality, 
though,  a  greater  percentage  of  calves  came  during  the  cooler  months, 
particularly  during  December,  January,  February,  and  March. 

Milking  was  done  at  approximately  12-hour  intervals,  although 
considerable  variation  was  found  to  exist  in  the  hours  selected  for 
milking.  The  milking  of  most  of  the  herds,  however,  started  between 
the  hours  of  4  and  5,  morning  and  afternoon.  One  dairyman  began 
operations  at  2  a.m.  and  2  p.m.,  1  between  the  hours  of  3  and  4,  4 
dairymen  between  5  and  6,  and  1  at  6  o'clock. 


Fig.  11. — Typical  dairying  section  of  Kern  County.  The  two  upper  photo- 
graphs are  of  pastures  consisting  of  wild  oats,  foxtail,  Bermuda  grass  and  alfalfa. 
Lower  photograph  is  of  alfalfa  utilized  green  and  as  hay. 


86  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Five  nationalities  were  represented  in  this  group  of  dairies,  there 
being  6  Americans,  5  Italians,  2  Swiss,  a  Canadian,  and  a  Dane. 
Milkers  were  reported  as  being*  mostly  Americans  but  with  a  sprinkling 
of  Italian,  Canadian,  Swiss,  and  Spanish. 

Both  butterfat  and  whole  milk  were  reported  in  the  sales.  Four- 
teen of  the  15  dairies  reported  sales  of  butterfat,  and  of  these  five  sold 
some  of  their  product  as  whole  milk.  Only  one  dairy  sold  all  its  out- 
put as  whole  milk.  During  the  year,  sales  were  made  to  the  Kern 
County  Creamery  and  Farms  Company,  Meadowlark  Creamery, 
Underwood  Jersey  Farm,  Peacock  and  Goode,  Kern  County  Sanitary 
Creamery,  and  to  the  Kern  County  Cooperative  Dairymen.  All  but 
two  of  the  dairymen  used  their  available  skimmilk  as  feed  for  calves, 
hogs,  and  poultry.  Lack  of  sufficient  stock  necessitated  throwing 
away  a  portion  of  this  by-product. 

Four  of  the  dairymen  were  operating  their  places  as  tenants;  the 
others  owned  the  ranches  that  they  were  directing. 

Summary  of  Costs 

Table  15  sets  forth  the  findings  resulting  from  the  assembling  of 
the  various  cost  items  involved  in  the  production  of  milk  on  the  15 
dairies  studied  in  Kern  County. 

TABLE  15 
Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Kern  County 

Number  of  dairies 15 

Number  of  cows 599 

Number  of  bulls 23 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  72,666  hours $20,945.82 

Man — management 3,530.00 

Horse,  10,375  hours 1,046.92 

Liability  insurance 59.00 

Total  labor  cost $25,581.74 

Feed 

Pasture $13,875.00 

Hay,  1915  tons : 25,108.85 

Concentrates,  69.19  tons 1,752.84 

Pumpkins,  13  tons 72.50 

Silage  and  fodder,  453  tons 2,843.00 

Total  feed  cost 43,652.19 

Hauling  milk  and  cream 5,002.09 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 2,490.35 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $3,223  @  6% 193.56 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         87 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle, 

$62,339.50  @  6% $3,740.37 

Mortality:  32  cows;  0  bulls 2,990.00 

Taxes 505.90 

Gross  herd  charge $7,236.27 

Credits  and  appreciation 7,246.95 

Net  herd  gain *(10.68) 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $22,960.50  @  6 %      $1,377.63 

Depreciation 541.60 

Upkeep 1,095.90 

Taxes 134.90 

Insurance 94.85 

Total  buildings  charge 3,244.88 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes $527.00 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $8,774.72 

@6% 526.48 

Depreciation  of  improvements 367.20 

Upkeep 394.00 

Total  corral  charge 1,814.68 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $5,698.58  @  6%         $341.93 

Depreciation 1,100.24 

Upkeep 596.71 

Taxes 2.52 

'Total  equipment  charge 2,041.40 

Total  gross  cost $84,020.89 

Credits 

Calves,  422 $1,309.50 

Manure 2,614.00 

Herd  appreciation 10.68 

Total  credits $3,934.18 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $80,086.71 

Total  production  of  whole  milk f  3,589,783  pounds 

\  or  417,417  gallons 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2.23,  or  19.2  cents  per  gallon 

Total  production  of  butterfat 140,444.2  pounds 

Total  cost  of  butterfat  in  cream 

Cost  of  whole  milk $80,086.71 

Credit  for  skimmilk,  32,510.68  hundredweight  @  30  cents  per 

100  pounds 9,753.16 

Cost  of  butterfat  in  cream $70,333.55 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  cream 50.1  cents 

Average  annual  production  per  cow j  5993  pounds  of  whole  milk 

\  234.4  pounds  of  butterfat 


*  A  credit. 


00  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  cows  and  bulls  belonging  to  the  milking  herd  on  these  15  dairies  were 
assessed  at  $17,260  and  the  dairy  fixtures  at  $85.  The  dairy  buildings  assessment 
for  the  dairies-  amounted  to  $4195,  after  estimating  the  proportion  of  the  total 
building  assessment  to  be  charged  against  the  dairy.  The  tax  rate  varied  with 
the  locality,  from  $2.58  to  $5.28  per  $100  of  assessment. 

Six  of  the  15  dairies  reported  building  insurance  and  two  carried  employers' 
liability  insurance.  Total  premiums  paid  were  small,  being  $94.85  for  building 
insurance,  and  $59  for  workmen's  compensation  insurance. 

On  an  average,  the  cost  of  manual  labor  spent  upon  these  dairies  amounted  to 
28.8  cents  per  hour.  Three  of  the  15  operators  felt  the  time  spent  on  manage- 
ment details  to  be  so  small  as  to  amount  to  practically  nothing,  and  these  men 
charged  for  their  time  at  the  going  rate  for  manual  labor  only.  The  other  12 
valued  their  management  time  at  from  50  cents  to  $1  per  hour,  the  total  time  thus 
amounting  to  $3530.  From  one-half  to  four  hours  a  day  per  dairy  was  given  as 
the  range  in  amount  of  time  spent  in  purely  managerial  work.  The  management 
charge  proved  to  be  almost  17  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor  charge. 

The  cost  per  horse  hour  on  the  different  dairies  ranged  from  5  to  18.6  cents 
an  hour,  with  a  general  average  of  9.8  cents.  Two  dairies  found  the  use  of  horse 
labor  unnecessary  and  hence  had  no  charge  for  this  item.  The  other  dairies 
used  horses  to  the  extent  of  10,375  hours  during  the  year. 

Neither  automobiles  nor  trucks  figured  in  the  carrying  on  of  the  dairy  work 
in  this  district. 

The  pasturage  cost  averaged  $925  per  dairy  for  the  year,  all  dairies  reporting 
the  use  of  pasture.  The  pasture  charge  averaged  $23.16  a  cow  a  year.  All  dairies 
fed  hay,  amounting  on  an  average  to  127  tons  to  the  dairy  a  year,  and  costing  on 
an  average  $13.11  a  ton.  The  average  cost  of  concentrates  amounted  to  $25.33 
with  pumpkins  $5.58  a  ton,  corn  fodder  $3  a  ton,  and  silage  $6.31  a  ton.  Concen- 
trates, pumpkins,  and  corn  fodder  did  not  constitute  very  much  of  the  feeding 
rations  during  the  year  under  observation. 

All  dairies  paid  for  contract  hauling,  although  in  some  instances  the  charge 
was  not  segregated,  being  taken  out  of  the  cream  check  so  that  only  net  payments 
showed.  In  every  instance  in  these  calculations,  though,  the  hauling  charge  was 
figured,  due  allowance  then  being  made  in  the  amount  of  the  receipts. 

Miscellaneous  charges  made  up  of  power,  fuel  and  supplies,  amounted  to 
$2490.35  for  the  district. 

A  total  of  $3223  for  operating  capital  was  reported,  or  an  average  of  $215 
to  the  dairy. 

The  average  value  of  the  cows  ranged  within  rather  close  limits.  Based  on 
the  average  of  the  first  and  second  inventories,  the  figures  ranged  from  a  low 
of  $87.50  a  head  to  a  high  of  $110,  with  a  general  average  of  $98.  Bull  values 
to  the  head  ranged  from  $62.50  to  $241.50,  with  a  general  average  of  $153.  Of 
the  total  herd  investment,  the  cow  values  made  up  95  per  cent,  the  bulls  the  remain- 
ing 5  per  cent.  The  dairy  herds  showed  a  marked  appreciation  for  the  district, 
12  of  the  15  dairies  reporting  appreciation  of  cows  and  7  appreciation  of  bulls. 
This  appreciation  can  be  attributed  to  heavy  culling  and  a  large  number  of  young 
cows  or  first  calf  heifers  in  the  herds  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  which  appre- 
ciated  in  value. 

Herd  mortality  was  made  up  of  32  cows  valued  at  $2990,  or  $93  a  head,  being 
thus  only  slightly  under  the  average  herd  value  as  shown  in  a  preceding  paragraph. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERPAT         89 

Mortality  constituted  a  little  over  5  per  cent  of  the  herd  average.  No  breeding- 
bulls  were  reported  as  dying.  Eleven  different  causes  were  stated  as  the  cause 
of  death  when  the  cause  was  known,  6  cows  dying  of  bloat,  6  in  calving,  5  from 
blackleg,  2  of  indigestion,  and  1  each  from  a  broken  leg,  tuberculosis,  lump -jaw, 
udder  trouble,  mule  kick,  paralysis,  and  the  swallowing  of  baling  wire. 

Dairy  building  equipment  for  the  15  dairies  consisted  of  13  milking  barns, 
15  milkhouses,  6  silos,  and  3  bull  shelter  sheds.  The  average  dairy  building 
investment  for  these  15  dairies  amounted  to  $1531,  ranging  from  $58.50  to  $6145. 
Seven  of  the  15  valued  the  dairy  buildings  at  less  than  $500,  2  at  from  $500  to 
$1000,  2  at  from  $1000  to  $2000,  while  4  valued  their  dairy  buildings  in  excess 
of  $2000.  Depreciation  was  estimated  at  3%  per  cent  on  barns  and  milk  houses, 
2  per  cent  on  silos,  and  8  per  cent  on  bull  shelters. 

Twelve  of  the  15  dairies  met  expenditures  for  building  upkeep  during  the  year, 
ranging  from  $10.50  to  $305.50.  On  the  basis  of  the  amount  invested  in  buildings, 
upkeep  amounted  to  4.8  per  cent  of  this  investment. 

Forty-six  acres  of  land  were  utilized  in  corral  and  dairy  building  sites,  ranging 
per  dairy  from  ^  to  8  acres.  The  rental  value  amounted  to  $527  for  the  15  dairies 
or  at  the  rate  of  $11.45  per  acre.  Investment  in  improvements  such  as  corral 
fences,  water  troughs,  sheds,  etc.,  ranged  from  $87.75  to  $2653,  with  a  total  for 
all  the  dairies  of  $8774.72,  or  an  average  to  the  dairy  of  $583.98.  The  deprecia- 
tion of  these  improvements  amounted  to  from  $7  to  $56,  a  total  of  $367.20,  and 
an  average  to  the  dairy  of  $24.49.  Depreciation  was  4.2  per  cent  of  the  invest- 
ment. Seven  dairymen  made  expenditures  on  corral  and  building  site  upkeep, 
totaling  $394,  and  ranging  from  $5  to  $111.  Corral  upkeep  amounted  to  4.5  per 
cent  of  the  total  investment  in  corrals  and  minor  improvements. 

The  total  investment  in  dairy  equipment  amounted  to  $5698.58,  ranging  from 
$108.70  on  one  dairy  to  $1369.65  on  another.  The  general  average  amounted  to 
$379.91  per  dairy.  The  usual  assortment  of  dairy  equipment  was  reported.  All 
dairies  possessed  separators,  milk  cans,  milk  pails,  milk  stools,  and  similar  equip- 
ment. In  total  numbers,  these  15  dairies  were  using  15  separators,  4  milking 
machines,  179  milk  cans,  52  milk  pails,  18  coolers,  7  milk  tanks,  10  lanterns,  17 
forks,  17  brooms,  15  shovels,  9  engines,  12  wheelbarrows,  6  sterilizers,  2  steam 
boilers,  1  spray  pump,  2  scales,  and  1  milk  tester.  Some  additional  equipment  was 
reported  such  as  stools,  a  table,  strainer  cloths,  hoes,  canvas,  shackles,  brushes, 
hose,  washtubs,  and  feed  truck. 

Depreciation  of  dairy  equipment  amounted  to  $1100.24  for  all  the  equipment 
possessed  by  these  dairies,  or  approximately  20  per  cent  of  the  average  invest- 
ment. Fourteen  of  the  15  dairies  found  it  necessary  to  make  expenditures  for 
dairy  equipment  unkeep,  the  total  amounting  to  $596.71.  The  lowest  expenditure 
was  $7.25,  the  highest  $111.50.  Annual  upkeep  was  lO1/^  per  cent  of  the  total 
investment  in  equipment. 

The  only  returns  to  the  dairies,  other  than  the  main  sales  and  the  miscellaneous 
credits  for  calves,  manure,  and  skimmilk,  were  from  bull  service,  two  dairies 
reporting  such,  amounting  to  $12  in  all. 

Values  per  head  for  calves  ultimately  vealed  or  weaned  but  valued  at  the  time 
of  dropping  ranged  from  $1.50  to  $5  per  head,  or  a  total  of  $1309.50  for  422 
head  retained  from  513  born.  As  the  majority  of  the  cows  were  Holsteins  on  the 
dairies  included  in  this  study,  the  range  in  calf  values  fell  within  rather  narrow 
extremes,  averaging  $3.10  per  head  for  the  number  kept. 

All  dairies  reported  some  value  for  the  manure  produced  by  the  dairies,  the 
total  amounting  to  $2614. 


90 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  12. — Representative  Kern  County  dairy  buildings. 


Bulletin  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET   MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         91 


Fig.  12. —  {Continued.) 


92  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

One  dairy  only  of  the  15  sold  whole  milk  exclusively,  5  sold  both  whole  milk 
and  butterfat,  and  9  sold  butterfat  only.  Calculated  on  a  basis  of  whole  milk, 
this  meant  a  total  production  of  3,589,783  pounds,  testing  from  3.3  to  4.7  per  cent 
butterfat,  or  an  average  of  3.9  per  cent.  This  milk  contained  a  total  of  140,444.2 
pounds  of  butterfat.  Of  the  total  production,  practically  6  per  cent  was  used 
on  the  ranch,  the  remaining  94  per  cent  being  sold  either  as  whole  milk  or  as 
butterfat.  Of  the  total  sales,  27.4  per  cent  went  as  whole  milk,  the  balance  as 
butterfat  in  40  per  cent  cream. 

Estimates  of  the  value  of  the  skimmilk  resulting  from  separating  ran  from 
nothing  to  58  cents  per  hundred  pounds.  The  average  amounted  to  30  cents, 
and  this  figure  was  used  in  the  calculations.  The  value  of  skimmilk  actually  fed 
amounted  to  $5350.47.  If  all  milk  had  been  sold  as  cream,  the  resulting  skimmilk 
would  have  possessed  a  value  of  $9,753.16. 

The  average  annual  production  per  cow  for  the  599  cows  covered  by  this  study 
amounted  to  5993  pounds  of  whole  milk,  containing  234.4  pounds  of  butter- 
fat. Seven  dairies  were  below  the  average  based  on  whole  milk  production,  and 
seven  below  that  based  on  butterfat  production.  The  lowest  whole  milk  average 
for  a  single  herd  was  down  to  4257  pounds  of  milk  per  cow  per  year;  the  highest 
amounted  to  7397  pounds.  The  lowest  herd  average  for  butterfat  production  was 
145  pounds  per  cow  per  year;  the  highest  324  pounds.  For  the  8  dairies  having 
from  10  to  35  cows,  the  average  production  per  cow  of  whole  milk  and  butterfat 
was  6011  pounds  and  225.9  pounds  respectively  as  against  averages  of  5985 
pounds  of  whole  milk  and  238.3  pounds  of  butterfat  for  the  dairies  having  from 
47  to  77  cows  inclusive.  The  small  size  dairy  group  contained  187  of  the  total 
599  cows.  For  all  practical  purposes,  therefore,  no"  radical  difference  occurred 
within  this  group  division. 

Actual  sales  of  whole  milk  made  by  7  of  the  15  dairies  brought  in  an  average 
gross  price  of  22y2  cents  per  gallon,  or  $2.61  per  hundred  pounds.  Actual  sales 
of  butterfat  commanded  gross  returns  of  50.5  cents  per  pound.  By  "gross" 
returns  is  meant  the  amount  of  the  check  plus  hauling  charge  of  2  cents  per  gallon 
of  whole  milk,  or  2  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat.  The  hauling  charge  was  in- 
cluded in  order  to  make  these  selling  prices  comparable  with  the  cost  figure  set 
forth  in  the  summary  table  above,  which  includes  hauling.  Approximately  one- 
third  the  receipts  came  from  the  sale  of  whole  milk  and  the  remaining  two-thirds 
from  sales  of  butterfat  either  in  cream  or  in  whole  milk. 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

Considerable  variation  exists  in  the  costs  of  the  different  items 
entering  into  the  production  of  whole  milk  and  butterfat.  For  pur- 
poses of  illustrating  this  point  and  also  to  permit  the  making  of  com- 
parisons between  dairies,  as  well  as  with  the  district  findings  as  a 
whole,  there  appears  in  table  16  data  in  condensed  form  setting  forth, 
on  a  basis  per  cow,  the  amounts  of  the  various  factors  entering  into 
the  community  averages  as  given  above.  From  a  district  average  cost 
of  $2.23  a  hundredweight  of  whole  milk,  the  costs  for  the  individual 
dairies  ranged  to  a  low  of  $1.37  and  a  high  of  $4.35.  The  range  for 
butterfat  was  from  29.7  cents  to  $1.07,  with  an  average  of  50.1  cents. 
Seven  dairies  produced  at  a  figure  lower  than  the  district  average. 


1 

1         © 

■* 

00 

o 

oo 

os 

1- 

1          ^N 

SO 

CO 

© 

© 

© 

©    OS    CM    CM    CO    i-H    |» 

O    IN 

t-  co  os    II 

•    O    OS 
OS  o      • 

t>    IN 

IO    CO    t-i 

CO 

M 

iO 

©  b-'  T»J  d   cd         <n 

CN    CN 

©    © 

©  id  © 

W     Ifl     H« 

"* 

CO    N    H 

CO     T-I 

M      Td      Tjl 

1        «© 

I-H                «© 

in    CN 

1 

1  s% 

e©               II 

«© 

«© 

IN     r- l    h-     -#     CO    i-H    CN 

O    t- 

co               || 

CO    t}h 

OS 

OS    OS    00    O    ■*    CO    OS 

■^       b- 

CO     TH     CO 
•     00     i-H 

co  oo     • 

©    CO 

CM    N    N 

iO 

50 

'O 

M    N    ^    iO    00    N    N 

id  oo 

CO    00 

00    CO    © 

t*    CO    CN 

io 

^    CD    CN 

tH    i-l 

CN    CN    CO 

C© 

i-h           «© 

"H    CO 

«© 

&%                    II 

«© 

e© 

N    H    -h    N    iO    rn    IO 

oo  >o 

1    n              1! 

CO    CN 

rH 

CO    I*-    00    CO    ■*    O    CO 

b-     tH 

O   N    N 

CO    I> 

OJIN    N 

CN 

CO 
CN 

CN     00     ^          '                -tf     i-H 

i-H     00 

■    00    CO 
CO    O       • 

co  d 

©    IO    © 

co  io 

O     i-H 

00    CD    tH 

00    i-l 

©    CN    CN 

c© 

e© 

e©        m    \\ 

6© 

C©   CN 

00    i— i    CD    CO    i-h    iO    CO 

t*    co 

00                        II 

00    © 

IN 

00    CD    l>    CO    00    00    00 

t>    iO 

I-H     l>     O 

■  ©  © 

•*    CN        ■ 

T-I      CO 

ONN 

r^ 

a 

CO 

<#    O    OS    CO    tJ<    CO    i-l 

id  t-1 

^     OS 

Tji  d  © 

m  O        <-• 

CD    CN 

TjH     b-     CN 

T«     i-H 

CN    CD    HH 

«©             * 

-H                S© 

h    CN 

«© 

«©              1! 

6© 

e© 

iO    O    <N    CO    O    —1    b- 

iO    iO 

©               II 

O      T}< 

© 

lO    O    O    »D    th    00    CN 

OS  o 

OS    -H    CD 

©      © 

os  th  co 

© 

K 

00    IN    ©   ^    H    iO   CO 

d  i-h 

IO    IO       • 

id  t^ 

t^.'  CO  © 

*#      IO                *                  i-H 

CN       T-I 

It© 

e© 

tH            (& 
«© 

e© 

«©   IN 

io  -*  o  ^  h  a  a 

CN    IN 

©            ^     II 

©  co 

I"- 

IO    05    H    N    <JI     f     H 

■hH    1> 

l>    t^    iO 

t^  i> 

©   00   o 

CD 

CD 

01 

CO 

OS    CO    ^    00           CO    CN 

cn  d 

•    iO    CN 
IO    CN        • 

id  i-h 

CO    tJH    00* 

CN    iO 

o 

OS    -^    CN 

os    T~< 

00    TjH     IO 

€© 

6© 

e©       «© 

¥=> 

€©   tH 

O   r«.    ©   ©   00   OS   00 

iO    iO 

©              II 

©  t^ 

co 

t«    ©   t*    CN    O    CN    O 

as  co 

CO    00    OS 

co  io 

t»    GO    © 

iO 

CD 

co 

id   CN    CN    ■*    ©   -th    © 

CN    <N 

■  iO  N 

O    -HH         . 

©  i> 

CN    i-H    tJH 

1<     CO    (N     ^     rt 

co  io 

00    CD    CN 

00     tH 

O    iO   CD 

C©    tH              * 

IN 

rH     &  w 

i-l    CN 

«© 

«©            II 

e© 

«© 

l>    CO    — 1    CD    CO    CM    Tfi 

CO     -H 

iO                     || 

O    CD 

© 

CD    iO    CO    O    "<*    Tt*    CO 

t>    CD 

i-H    00    CN 

i-l    00 

IN    ©    iO 

CO 
CO 

»> 

■* 

^'    CO    O    -#    ■*'    CN    CO 

CN    t> 

•    00    CD 
IO   N       • 

id   CN 

CN     IO     HH 

tHH     IO     rH     r-l 

co 

N    if    N 

CN    i-h 

i-h    O    IO 

6© 

H                «© 

rH     CN 

e© 

e©              II 

«© 

s© 

CO    00    CO    OS    OS    i— 1    OS 

iO   ^ 

r-<      CN 

© 

t-h  io  os  o  os  ao  co 

os  oo 

H    COM 

i-H     T« 

CO    CO   N 

CN 

CO 

eq 

-*    »!    t>.'    00    i-h    CO    IN 

id  id 

•    iO    CO 
O    OS       ■ 

©  co 

©    00    00 

CN    CD           CN 

CO 

CO    Tf<    CN 

co  i-t 

th    OS    iO 

e© 

-1        «# 

€© 

e©              II 

"«© 

«© 

CO    O    OS    CO    i-H    00    IO 

CN    O 

CN                     1 

CN    CO 

OS 

O     00     ION     H     H     H 

O    CO 

N    H    IO       . 

t>    TJH 

CN    t>    IN 

CO 

c 

t-I  CN   CN   ©   i-H   CO   id 

t^'   CN 

•  h*  eo 

^    OS       • 

■*    CO 

HNS 

CN    r-i 

H     T}<     *&        l 

©    00    © 

CN 

(N            C© 

CN 

CN      TH     rH 

e© 

S© 

€©                    1 

«© 

C© 

©    CN    CO    ©    -h    O    00 

O    iO 

iO                     | 

iO    CN 

CO 

IO    .-H    O    •*    IN    IN    i-h 

t^  t^ 

OS   CO   <N 

©  co 

©    IO    CN 

o 

CD 

U3 

ro 

IN    O    t»           IN    tHH    tJ< 

d  i> 

.     tH     o 

(N    N        • 

IN    00 

i*     00     TjH 

-#     TJH     rH 

O    CD    CO 

O       I-H 

00     TH     t> 

«©  i-h 

CN 

cn        e© 

CN 

^1    CN 

«© 

«© 

e© 

«© 

O    i*    IO    N    a    iO   N 

00   o 

00                     | 

00    iO 

co 

IN    IO    *    CO    D    iO    H 

IN    CD 

co  co  co 

CO     tH 

ID    00    00 

OS 
IO 

©     I-H     T-H     GO         '     H     N 

CN     'HH 

•     "O     tH 

I>    iO 

CN    th    d 

CO    CO    i-h 

CN 

tH    iO    CN 

©    O    iO 

«© 

■-H                «© 

rH     CN 

C© 

«©           1 

c© 

s© 

t-H     i-H     1^     O     O     00     OS 

co  oo 

00                        | 

00    iO 

co 

CO    00    M    M    OS    N    N 

t^    iO 

H    S    C» 

O    ©    IO 

00 

IO 

QC 

CD    O    00    OS    th    io    i-h 

CO    •* 

•  os  co 
os  co 

©  o 

©  id  © 

o 

OS    J>    CN 

©    CN 

i>  ©  © 

«©      T-I 

CN 

i-l           c© 

i-h    CN 

^ 

€©                      1 

6© 

«© 

CN    CO    O    OS    CO    l>    CO 

O    OS 

-H     IO 

© 

OS    i-H    t-I    CO    OS    IO    CN 

CO    IO 

i>  os  co 

l>     t~ 

©    ©    © 

I> 

«3 

N 

t^ 

os  d  h  co  d  i-I  in 

id  t> 

•     O     tH 
l>    OS        • 

t>    IO 

th    iO    CN 

COCDTH                    rH 

CO 

CN    iO    CN 

CN        T-I 

H     OHJ 

rH             6© 

rH     CN 

«© 

«© 

6© 

m 

i-h   O   CO   00   CD   co    >o 

00    •<* 

th                  1 

TJH     CO 

r-| 

CN    IN    O    tH    00    00    CO 

■*    CN 

N   H   if) 

CN    1> 

IO    00    l> 

CD 
iO 

0) 

to 

d  co  t-I  d     '       cn 

00    CO 

•    ©    00 
if)    CO       • 

id    CN 

<N      rH     t^i 

h*    IO   rH   CN 

O    IN 

00     T}<     T-H 

00     TH 

t^    IO    ■* 

6©                  * 

6© 

e©       e© 

6© 

«©    rH 

'o  t 

i-h    1>    CO    CN    IN    CO    i-h 

t>    t^ 

©              1 

©    X 

CN 

N    00    00    O    *    O    ■* 

CN    iC 

N   CO    CO 

I>    CN 

THH     Tj<     tH 

~ 

■    ©    <N 

OS   "a 

~ 

CN    CN    CN       '    id    CO    CO 

d  cc 

co  ©     • 

CO    © 

!>•*'© 

«c 

HI    N     H    * 

■* 

CO    iO    CN 

CO     I-H 

i-H     CO     IO 

6© 

—I       m 

i-h    CN 

C© 

\    e© 

C© 

«© 

— 

i  c^    1 
jl 

S     O 

o  -§ 

a 

h3 

■~ 

-0      H 

a 

J* 

0     o 

l 

O     -»J> 

P 
cc 
a 

* 

-g  "o 

5  5 

M 

E 

—    cd 

"5  £ 

a 
b 

1 

a. 

8 

ec 

T? 

i 

-i- 

E 

CE 

e 

T-H          «          M         | 

3'   £      CP 

—     or 

l        t2 

"o  — 

H^     "V.      "S 

03    ^  _o 

03     0)     c3     M    i 

a    m  -c    <-  +- 

«      T-.      o      3      c 

°  1 

J3           ^ 

c 

J 

c 

2 

s  is   „j:   n 
• -  -g    0    *    S 

1  s 

O         §t3 

*o   k 

St 

"s  §  a 

> 
'5 

'    &J 

I'H 

§11 

y   o   a 

"3  x 

^»     ^     HJ 

"S  2  8 

o   2   § 

P 

12 

o 

E- 

C 

|z 

Ph  O    1 

^ 

C 

52 

f 

O 

94  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

8.    LOS    ANGELES-ORANGE    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

The  year  of  study  in  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  section  rounded  out 
with  complete  and  satisfactory  data  from  40  dairies.  The  various 
dairies  were  selected  from  a  rather  wide  extent  of  country,  21  being 
located  in  Los  Angeles  County,  14  in  Orange  County,  and  5  in  San 
Bernardino  County.  The  5  in  San  Bernardino  County  are  similar  in 
conditions  to  the  dairies  studied  in  Los  Angeles  County  so  these  5 
are  run  in  with  the  latter  district  and  classified  as  Los  Angeles  records : 
Being  situated  3  at  Ontario  and  2  at  Chino,  they  were  just  over  the 
county  line.  The  Los  Angeles  dairies  selected  for  study  were  situated 
5  at  Artesia,  4  each  at  Burbank  and  Van  Nuys,  1  each  at  Norwalk, 
Whittier,  and  Lankershim,  1  in  the  city  of  Pasadena,  and  4  in  the 
city  of  Pomona.  The  Orange  County  dairies  comprised  9  in  the 
vicinity  of  Santa  Ana,  2  at  Buena  Park,  and  1  each  at  Anaheim, 
Garden  Grove,  and  North  Batavia. 

The  yearly  records  covered  mostly  from  January,  1922,  to  Janu- 
ary, 1923,  these  dates  holding  for  all  the  Orange  County  records  and 
for  14  from  Los  Angeles  County.  Seven  of  the  remaining  records 
dated  from  March  1,  1922,  to  March  1,  1923,  and  5  from  April  1, 
1922,  to  April  1,  1923. 

Dairying  is  followed  often  in  conjunction  with  other  farm  enter- 
prises. There  is  no  specialized  dairying  section,  dairies  being  scat- 
tered here  and  there  throughout  the  farming  belts,  although  usually 
on  the  lands  better  suited  to  field  crop  production,  dairying  gives 
way  to  fruit,  truck,  or  similar  intensive  types  of  farming  wherever 
conditions  favor  such  practice. 

These  40  dairies  utilized  2160  acres  of  land.  Seven  of  the  dairies 
possessed  corral  and  dairy  buildings  space  only,  so  far  as  their  dairies 
were  concerned,  these  ranging  from  1  to  5  acres  per  dairy  and  totaling 
19  acres.  Of  the  remaining  2141  acres,  approximately  1000  acres 
was  utilized  by  a  single  dairy,  the  survey  including  one  large  herd. 
This  leaves  32  dairies  with  total  area  of  1141  acres,  or  an  average 
of  less  than  40  acres  each.  These  32  by  groups  possessed  acreages  as 
follows:  G  of  10  acres  or  less,  3  of  from  11  to  20  acres,  15  of  from  20 
to  40  acres,  and  8  of  from  40  to  102  acres.  Three  of  the  5  dairies 
located  within  the  city  limits  of  Pomona  and  Pasadena  had  acreages 
of  10  acres  each,  1  possessed  35  acres,  while  the  fifth  utilized  corral 
space  only. 


Bulletin  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         95 

Considerable  of  the  total  acreage  was  utilized  by  corrals.  The 
remainder  was  used  for  alfalfa,  corn,  grain,  and  similar  feeds,  with 
some  pasture  on  alkali,  rolling,  and  swamp  land  and  on  alfalfa  land 
between  cuttings.  The  lands  are  far  short  of  producing  all  the  feeds 
needed  by  the  dairies,  and  of  necessity  recourse  is  had  to  the  purchase 
of  additional  feeds  in  large  quantities.  The  cropped  land  is  mostly 
level,  under  irrigation,  and  farmed  to  produce  as  much  feed  as  pos- 
sible. Pasturing  of  cattle  is  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Only 
9  dairymen  reported  pasture.  Of  the  nine  only  2  obtained  year-round 
pasture;   with  the   others   pasturing   was   irregular   and   limited   in 


Fig.  13. — Typical  dairy  herd  of  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  district. 


amount.  Heavy  feeding  under  corral  conditions  is  the  general  prac- 
tice and  cows  are  forced  to  maximum  production,  otherwise  dairying 
is  not  profitable  enough  to  justify  its  continuance. 

Heavy  feeding  is  the  rule.  For  roughage  alfalfa  hay  is  the  out- 
standing feed  with  a  little  additional  use  of  oat  and  barley  hays.  Hay 
is  fed  the  year  round,  supplemented  with  regular  and  constant  use 
of  concentrates.  Considerable  silage  is  utilized,  and  miscellaneous 
feeds  such  as  crops  cut  green,  bean  straw,  beets,  and  pumpkins. 

Of  the  total  herd  numbers,  2242  cows  and  64  bulls,  393  cows  and 
18  bulls  were  in  the  records  for  Orange  County,  and  the  remainder, 
1849  cows  and  46  bulls,  in  Los  Angeles  County  and  the  contiguous 
section  of  San  Bernardino  County  which  was  studied  as  a  part  of  the 
Los  Angeles  dairying  section.     The  average  size  of  herd  for  the  dis- 


96  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

trict  was  56,  but  of  the  40  herds,  22  averaged  less  than  40  head,  and 
of  these,  16  had  less  than  30  head.  Only  2  herds  were  over  100  head 
in  size,  these  containing  respectively  131  and  555  head.  Four  herds 
contained  40  to  50,  four  50  to  60,  four  60  to  70,  two  70  to  80,  and  two 
80  to  90  head  each.  Of  the  total  number  of  herds,  14  were  in  Orange 
County  and  26  in  Los  Angeles  County  (including  the  neighboring 
strip  of  San  Bernardino  County).  The  herds  selected  for  study  in 
Orange  County  ran  from  11  to  57  in  size,  and  totaled  392  cows  and 
18  bulls. 

Of  the  40  herds  covered  by  the  investigations  in  this  part  of  the 
State,  1  was  of  registered  Holsteins,  20  of  Holsteins,  3  of  mostly  Hol- 
steins;  3  of  Jerseys;  7  of  Holstein  and  Jersey;  1  of  Holstein  and 
Shorthorn;  1  of  Jersey,  Holstein  and  Shorthorn;  3  "mixed";  and  1 
of  Guernseys  and  Holsteins, 

Twenty-six  of  the  40  herds  reported  registered  bulls,  42  in  num- 
ber, and  made  up  33  Holsteins,  5  Jerseys,  and  4  breed  not  given. 
This  is  65.5  per  cent  of  the  total  bulls  reported  for  the  district. 
Eighteen  dairies  reported  registered  cows  to  the  extent  of  128,  con- 
sisting of  116  Holsteins,  3  Jerseys,  and  9  breed  not  stated.  This 
amounts  to  5.4  per  cent  of  the  total  average  number  of  cows  carried 
by  the  dairies  during  the  year.  Purebred  stock,  not  registered,  was 
not  specially  listed,  but  would  add  to  the  numbers  given  here.  Cows 
are  bred  to  freshen  at  all  times  of  the  year  in  order  to  keep  up  a 
regular  production  'month  by  month.  Only  six  dairymen  reported 
that  they  attempted  to  have  most  of  their  cows  freshen  in  the  fall. 

When  dairying  labor  is  hired,  such  employing  comes  in  compe- 
tition with  the  demands  of  other  industries.  Working  hours,  length 
of  work  day,  and  wages  are  therefore  regulated  somewhat  in  accord 
with  those  prevailing  throughout  the  section  in  general.  One  dairy- 
man milks  at  midnight  and  at  2  p.m.  ;  7  at  2  or  2 :30 ;  12  at  3  or  3  :30 ; 
15  at  4  or  4:30;  3  at  5;  and  1  at  6.  On  one  dairy  all  the  cows  are 
milked  three  times  a  day,  at  2  :30  and  10  a.m.,  and  6  p.m.  On  a  second 
dairy  a  part  of  the  cows  are  milked  three  times  daily,  at  2  and  10  a.m. 
and  at  6  p.m. 

For  dairy  help  recourse  is  had  to  various  nationalities,  the  list 
for  1922  including  mostly  Americans  but  also  Portuguese,  French, 
Hollanders,  Canadians,  English,  German,  Swiss,  Italians  and  Irish. 
Among  the  operators  themselves,  farm-owning  American  predomin- 
ated, 36  of  the  40  operators  reporting  as  Americans;  the  other  4  claim- 
ing Canada,  Holland,  or  Italy  as  their  home  countries. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  OF  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT         97 

Whole  milk  is  the  objective  of  these  dairymen,  the  price  received 
being  determined  by  the  butterfat  content.  Sales  are  considered  in 
terms  of  hundredweight,  with  the  price  paid  quoted  as  so  much  per 
pound  of  butterfat  content  of  the  milk.  Thus  if  the  price  is  90  cents 
or  $1.00  it  means  that  these  amounts  are  being  paid  for  each  pound 
of  butterfat  in  milk  of  standard  grade.  If  the  price,  then,  is  $1.00 
per  pound  butterfat,  a  dairyman  shipping  milk  testing  3.7  per  cent 
butterfat  would  receive  $3.70  per  hundredweight.  In  this  section 
of  the  state  dairymen  think  in  terms  of  butterfat,  though  selling  whole 
milk,  and  in  discussing  prices  it  is  the  common  practice  to  state  returns 
as  "so  much  per  pound  butterfat"  instead  of  per  gallon  or  per  hun- 
dredweight. Milk  failing  to  qualify  under  a  stated  grade  is  paid  for 
only  at  the  prevailing  butterfat  price  in  cream.  This  averages  less 
than  the  price  paid  for  whole  milk,  and  milk  so  sold  brings  in  no  more 
than  the  value  of  the  actual  butterfat  it  contains. 

During  the  year  sales  were  reported  as  being  made  to  the  Los 
Angeles  Creamery;  the  California  Milk  Producers'  Association;  Burr 
Creamery  Company,  Los  Angeles ;  Excelsior  Dairy,  Santa  Ana ;  Sani- 
tary Dairy,  Santa  Ana ;  Crescent  Creamery,  Los  Angeles ;  City  Dairy, 
Pomona;  Mutual  Dairy  Association;  Little  Rock  Dairy,  Los  Angeles'; 
Hansen  Dairy,  Los  Angeles ;  Glendale  Creamery  Company ;  Sanitary 
Gold  Seal  Dairy,  Los  Angeles;  Santa  Monica  Dairy  Company; 
Ontario  and  Upland  Creamery;  Pomona  Valley  Creamery;  and  the 
Whittier  Sanitary  Dairy.  Three  of  the  40  dairymen  retailed  their 
output,  and  1  practiced  a  combination  of  retailing  and  wholesaling. 

Of  the  40  operators  only  2  were  tenant  farmers,  1  was  both  owner 
and  tenant,  while  the  remainder  were  owners. 


Summary  of  Costs 

Table  17  sets  forth  the  findings  resulting  from  the  assembling  of 
the  various  cost  items  involved  in  the  production  of  milk  on  the  40 
dairies  studied  in  Los  Angeles  and  Orange  counties. 


98  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

TABLE   17 
Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Los  Angeles  and  Orange  Counties 

Number  of  dairies 40 

Number  of  cows 2242 

Number  of  bulls 64 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  336,864  hours $122,450. 13 

Man — management 18,394.34 

Horse,  53,641  hours 5,782.40 

Truck  and  automobile,  18,732  miles 915.47 

Insurance 1,175.00 

Total  labor  cost , "    $148,717.34 

Feed 

Pasture $5,999.00 

Hay,  8,592.1  tons 188,785.20 

Concentrates,  2,833.18  tons 102,444.15 

Green  feed,  6,109.75  tons 39,020.00 

Silage,  6,249.98  tons 47,188.40 

Pumpkins  and  squash,  2.427  tons 13,322.30 

Bean  straw,  278.5  tons 3,629.00 

Insurance 687.49 

Total  feed  costs '    $401,075.54 

Hauling  milk 30,306.13 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 16,604.46 

Interest  on  operating  capital  $51,310  @  6% 3,078.60 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle, 

$390,432.31  @  6% $23,425.94 

Depreciation 40,496.36 

Mortality:  75  cows,  $11,384;  2  bulls,  $165 11,549.00 

Taxes 4,085.93 

Insurance 563.76 

Gross  herd  charge 80,120.99 

Credits 166.00 

Net  herd  charge 79,954.99 

Buildings  charge 

Interest    on    average    investment    of    $108,455.25 

©6% 6,507.32 

Depreciation 6,122.41 

Upkeep 1,653.88 

Taxes ■ 1,161.31 

Insurance 737.22 

Total  buildings  charge 16,182.14 


BULLETIN   372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK   AND  BUTTERFAT         99 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes,  11734  acres $3,985.00 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $18,687.94 

@6% 1,121.27 

Depreciation  of  improvements 2, 135.76 

Upkeep 609.55 

Total  corral  charge 7,851.58 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $12,666.93  @  6%  760.01 

Depreciation 2,688.94 

Upkeep 1,906.09 

Taxes 69.37 

Total  equipment  charge 5,424.41 

Total  gross  cost $709,195.19 

Credits 

Calves,  1527 $8,368.62 

Manure 28,928.88 

Total  credits $37,297.50 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $671,897.69 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 18,019,576  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $3.73 

Total  production  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 692,993.1  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 97  cents 

.  .         ,     ,.  /  8041  pounds  of  whole  milk 

Average  annual  production  per  cow <  nn„  ^  ,      ,,    n     -  , 

[  309.2  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

In  commenting  upon  the  findings  in  Los  Angeles  and  Orange  counties  subtotals 
of  some  of  the  items  for  each  of  the  two  counties  have  been  inserted  in  the  follow- 
ing paragraphs  because  of  local  interest  in  the  figures  for  the  individual  counties. 

Orange  County,  herds  covered  by  this  study  were  assessed  at  $14,955  and  Los 
Angeles  County  herds  at  $85,815.  Buildings  belonging  to  the  dairies  were  assessed 
at  $4033  in  Orange,  and  $24,950  in  Los  Angeles  counties.  Dairy  equipment 
assessments  amounted  to  $1772  in  Los  Angeles  County,  with  no  assessments  in 
Orange  County.  The  tax  rate  per  $100  of  assessed  value  ranged  from  $3.15  to 
$6.45  in  Orange  County  and  from  $2.88  to  $5.08  in  Los  Angeles  County. 

Thirty-two  dairymen  carried  building  insurance  amounting  to  $85.73  worth 
of  premiums  in  Orange  County  and  $651.49  in  Los  Angeles  County.  Insurance 
of  livestock  was  carried  by  but  one  dairy — in  Los  Angeles  County,  employers' 
liability  insurance  by  13  dairymen,  and  feed  insurance  by  15.  Orange  County 
liability  insurance  amounted  to  $173.08  and  feed  to  $12.  Los  Angeles  County 
totals  amounted  to  $1001.92  for  employers'  liability  and  $675.49  on  feed. 

The  cost  of  manual  labor  utilized  in  producing  the  output  of  these  dairies 
averaged  36.4  cents  per  hour  in  this  district.  Of  the  total  hours  and  money 
spent  for  manual  work,  72,864  hours  and  $25,095.90  are  chargeable  against  Orange 
County  dairies  and  the  balance  against  those  of  Los  Angeles  County.  Of  the  total 
management  charge,   $2916.35  was  reported  from   Orange   County.     Twenty-nine 


100  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

dairymen  of  the  district  placed  a  figure  upon  the  time  spent  by  them  in  purely 
management  work,  the  total  amounting  to  15  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor  charge. 

Use  of  horses  entered  into  the  costs  on  28  of  the  40  dairies  and  were  utilized 
to  the  extent  of  12,750  hours  in  Orange  and  40,891  hours  in  Los  Angeles  County. 
Costs  amounted  to  $1673.42  in  Orange  and  $4108.98  in  Los  Angeles  County. 
The  rate  per  hour  throughout  the  district  varied  from  3.5  to  49.3  cents  per  hour 
for  all  work  done  by  work  horses.  One  saddle  horse,  kept  solely  for  the  dairy 
and  used  but  a  few  minutes  per  day,  cost  the  keeper  $120  a  year,  or  at  the 
rate  of  $1.34  per  hour,  obviously  an  uneconomical  proposition.  The  average  eost 
per  hour  for  all  horse  labor  amounted  to  10  cents. 

Nine  dairymen  utilized  trucks  or  automobiles  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  the 
dairies.  Of  the  18,732  miles  traveled  in  such  work  1947  were  by  Orange  County 
dairies  at  a  cost  of  $222.46.  The  average  cost  per  mile  for  the  use  of  this  equip- 
ment was  4.8  cents  per  mile.  The  range  in  costs  varied  from  3.6  to  13.9  cents  a 
mile.  The  low  average  cost  for  the  district  is  traceable  to  the  fact  that  87  per 
cent  of  the  total  hauling  was  done  by  a  single  dairy,  with  a  second-hand  truck 
operated  at  a  mileage  cost  of  but  3.6  cents.  Of  the  remaining  eight  dairies  the 
cost  was  respectively  6,  8,  10,  10,  10,  12.3,  13.9,  and  11.9  cents  per  mile. 

Of  the  40  dairymen  reported  in  this  study,  only  14  reported  pasture  and  this 
of  small  value,  all  fed  hay  and  concentrates,  27  fed  silage,  6  fed  pumpkins,  squash, 
beets,  wet  beet  pulp,  and  orange  pulp,  and  6  fed  bean  straw.  All  but  2  of  the 
dairymen  fed  hay  continuously  throughout  the  year,  alfalfa  predominating  with 
some  use  of  barley  and  oat  hay.  Those  not  so  feeding  skipped  only  a  month  or 
two,  and  then  commonly  substituted  green  alfalfa.  Feeding  of  concentrates  was 
consistently  practiced  on  all  dairies  throughout  the  year.  A  variety  of  con- 
centrates was  used.  For  instance,  of  32  dairies  where  the  feed  was  reported  in 
detail,  the  numbers  of  kinds  of  concentrates  fed  ranged  from  3  to  8,  or  an 
average  of  5.  The  choice  of  dairymen  in  kinds  of  concentrates  can  be  gathered 
from  the  analysis  of  the  feeds  used  by  32  of  these  40  dairymen.  Twenty-eight  fed 
barley,  26  sugar  beet  pulp,  22  bran,  20  coconut  meal,  17  mill  feeds  of  various 
kinds,  12  cottonseed  meal,  11  corn,  or  corn  meal,  5. oats,  2  alfalfa  meal,  2  "blow- 
overs,  "  and  1  each  wheat,  linseed  oil  meal,  grape  stems,  middlings,  and  molasses. 
Silage  was  mostly  fed  during  the  months  of  October  to  March  inclusive,  with 
the  bulk  of  the  feeding  taking  place  during  November,  December,  January  and 
February.  Six  dairymen  fed  silage  all  year,  two  for  10  months,  and  one  for  11 
months.  Various  use  was  made  of  green  feeds  from  growing  barley,  corn,  oats, 
and  alfalfa,  cauliflower  leaves,  pumpkins,  squash,  beets,  beet  tops,  oat  and  bean 
straws,  and  of  green  beet  pulp.  Costs  of  feeds  per  ton  during  the  year  covered 
by  this  study  averaged:  Hay  $21.97,  concentrates  $36.48,  green  feed  $6.39,  silage 
$7.55,  pumpkins  and  squash  $5.49,  bean  straw  $13.03.  Pasture  per  cow  per  year 
amounted  to  $2.68.  The  cost  of  hauling  milk  was  made  up  of  $7952.03  from 
Orange  County  and  $22,354.10  from  Los  Angeles  County.  Expenditures  for  sup- 
plies, cow  testing,  and  similar  miscellaneous  items  amounted  to  $3557.92  on  the 
Orange  County  dairies  and  $12,936.54  on  those  of  Los  Angeles  County. 

Orange  County  dairymen  reporting  for  this  study  gave  a  total  operating 
capital  of  $5835,  while  those  of  Los  Angeles  County  reported  a  total  of  $45,475. 
Interest  at  6  per  cent  thus  amounted  to  $350.10  for  Orange  and  $2728.50  for  Los 
Angeles  counties. 

Dairy  cattle  values  ranged  about  the  same  in  all  parts  of  the  district,  cows 
averaging  $166.24,  but  ranging  from  $100  to  $400  for  herd  averages.    Seven  dairy- 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     101 

men  figured  their  average  cow  values  at  $200  or  more  a  head.  Bull  values  per 
head  covered  a  wide  range,  from  $30  to  $1000,  but  averaged  $275.  The  total 
investment  in  herds  amounted  to  $390,432.31,  of  which  cow  values  contributed 
slightly  over  95  per  cent.  Orange  County  herd  investments  made  up  $81,951.53 
of  this. 

Of  the  40  herds  reporting  data  for  this  study  depreciation  of  cows  occurred 
with  all  but  9,  these  9  showing  an  actual  appreciation.  Net  depreciation  of  cows 
for  the  district  amounted  to  $36,633.56.  Of  this  $11,747.50  came  from  the 
Orange  County  dairies.  Four  dairies  reported  bull  appreciation,  15  reported  no 
change,  while  the  remainder  showed  depreciation.  The  total  net  depreciation  of 
bulls  in  the  district  amounted  to  $3,862.80,  to  which  Orange  County  contributed 
$820/00. 

During  the  year  under  observation  75  cows  died,  this  number  amounting  to 
close  to  3  per  cent  of  the  average  number  maintained  in  the  herds.  The  value 
of  those  dying  amounted  to  $11,384.  Two  bulls  were  reported  as  dying,  these 
having  a  value  of  $165  each.  Of  the  total,  Orange  County  dairies  suffered  the 
loss  of  16  cows  valued  at  $2840  and  1  bull  valued  at  $100. 

The  dairy  buildings  consisted  of  40  milking  barns,  32  separate  milk  houses, 
32  feed,  hay  or  shelter  barns,  47  silos,  4  cow  sheds,  and  1  engine  house  maintained 
solely  for  the  dairy  on  the  ranch  where  it  was  found.  The  investment  in  dairy 
buildings  ranged  from  $92.50  to  $23,020.  Fifteen  dairies  had  a  building  invest- 
ment of  $1000  or  less,  9  of  from  $1000  to  $2000,  11  between  $2000  and  $5000, 
and  5  in  excess  of  $5000.  Of  the  total,  Orange  County  dairy  buildings  made  up 
$23,499.17.  Thirty  dairymen  spent  mon?y  for  building  upkeep,  ranging  from 
$3  to  $587.50  during  the  year,  totaling  $1653.88,  of  which  $200  was  incurred  for 
Orange  County  dairies.  For  the  district,  building  upkeep  amounted  to  1.5  per  cent 
of  the  building  investment.  Depreciation  of  these  dairy  buildings  amounted  to 
$6122.41,  or  5.6  per  cent  of  the  average  yearly  investment  of  $108,455.25.  Invest- 
ment in  Orange  County  buildings  amounted  to  $23,499.17,  with  a  depreciation 
figure  of  $1216.46. 

These  40  dairies  utilized  1171/4  acres  of  land  in  dairy  building  sites  and  corrals, 
which  at  going  rental  rates  possessed  an  annual  value  of  $3985,  or  close  to  $34 
per  acre.  Investment  in  improvements  ranged  from  $38.50  to  $2316.32  for  the 
individual  dairies.  Four  dairies  had  invested  less  than  $100,  23  from  $100  to 
$500,  10  from  $500  to  $1000,  and  3  over  $1000.  Depreciation  of  these  improve- 
ments amounted  to  $2135.76  during  the  year,  or  11.4  per  cent  of  an  investment 
amounting  to  $18,687.94.  Eighteen  dairies  spent  a  total  of  $609.55  on  upkeep, 
this  being  3.2  per  cent  of  the  investment.  Of  the  totals,  Orange  County  con- 
tributed 331/!  acres  of  land  valued  at  $1092.50,  an  investment  of  $6909.87,  and 
depreciation  of  $904.45. 

The  40  dairies  covered  by  the  study  included  a  variety  of  dairy  equipment,  of 
which  the  more  important  consisted  of  9  milking  machines,  39  wheelbarrows,  104 
forks,  71  shovels,  32  feed  carts,  143  milk  pails,  26  milk  tanks,  41  milk  coolers, 
7  boilers,  33  lanterns,  3  feed  trucks,  6  scrapers,  12  scales,  19  tubs,  37  sterilizers, 
3  refrigerating  systems,  4  feed  boxes,  and  additional,  though  minor  equipment 
in  the  way  of  milk  cans,  testing  outfit,  veterinary  outfits,  milking  stools,  bull 
staffs,  chains,  ropes,  and  similar  items.  The  total  investment  in  dairying  equip- 
ment amounted  to  $12,666.93,  of  which  $1865.19  was  invested  on  Orange  County 
dairies.  The  investments  ranged  from  $19.03  to  $2900.  Twelve  of  the  dairies 
in  the  district  had  less  than  $50  apiece  invested,  8  had  from  $50   to   $100,  13 


102  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  14. — Kepresentative  dairy  structures  of  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  area. 


Bulletin  372]     COst  of  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     103 


Tig.  14. — (Continued) 


104  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

between  $100  and  $500,  five  from  $500  to  $1000,  and  two  in  excess  of  $1000. 
Depreciation  amounted  to  a  total  of  $2688.94,  to  which  Orange  County  dairies 
contributed  $294.64.  Based  on  the  total  investment  in  the  district,  $12,666.93, 
depreciation  amounted  to  21.2  per  cent  for  the  year.  Every  dairyman  spent  some- 
thing on  upkeep  of  his  dairy  equipment,  ranging  from  42  cents  to  $341.25,  and 
totaling  $1906.09,  or  15  per  cent  of  the  investment  in  equipment. 

No  miscellaneous  receipts  were  noted  except  from  sales  of  feed  sacks  and 
$166  for  bull  service  and  boarding  cows.  The  credit  for  sack  receipts  has  been 
deducted  from  the  cost  of  concentrates,  and  the  herd  credit  shows  in  that  por- 
tion of  the  summary  table  dealing  with  herd  charges. 

From  an  average  of  2242  cows  carried  in  these  herds  during  the  year,  1527 
calves  were  either  sold  for  veal  or  retained  for  rearing.  The  common  practice  is 
to  sell  veal  calves  when  but  four  or  five  days  old,  or  by  the  time  that  the  mother 's 
milk  is  fit  for  human  consumption.  Should  a  calf  be  saved  for  raising,  the 
general  practice  is  to  feed  1%  gallons  of  whole  milk  until  the  calf  is  three  months 
old.  Occasionally  less  feeding  is  done,  as  one  gallon  of  milk  daily,  or  else 
whole  milk  is  replaced  with  skimmilk  fortified  with  some  form  of  calf  meal,  this 
feed  being  continued  until  the  calf  is  four  or  five  months  old.  A  "very  few 
calves  were  reported  as  receiving  in  excess  of  1%  gallons,  rates  of  2  and  2^ 
gallons  of  whole  milk  being  recorded.  Lack  of  skimmilk  and  value  of  whole  milk 
tends  to  close  culling  and  early  sales.  Most  dairymen  valued  these  calves  by  the 
time  that  the  cows'  milk  could  be  sold  at  $3  or  $4  per  head  for  all  either  saved 
or  vealed.  The  lowest,  figure  reported  was  $1.50,  the  highest  figure  $100,  this 
latter  value  being  for  calves  from  purebred,  registered  stock.  The  total  values 
for  the  1527  calves  saved  amounted  to  $8368.62,  or  $5.48  per  head.  Orange  County 
dairies  saved  213  calves  valued  at  $1071. 

Manure  is  a  substantial  credit.  Without  a  single  exception  every  dairy  deemed 
the  manure  of  value  either  for  the  returns  secured  if  sales  were  made  or  for  the 
benefits  derived  from  its  use  upon  the  operator's  land.  Twenty-seven  dairymen 
reported  sales  in  varying  amounts.  In  all,  the  value  of  the  manure  produced, 
whether  sold  or  used  on  the  ranch  where  it  was  produced,  amounted  to  $28,928.88. 
This  is  equivalent  to  $12.90  per  cow  per  year.  Sales  were  reported  at  various 
figures,  although  prices  of  3,  4,  5,  and  6  cents  per  cubic  foot  were  most  frequently 
encountered.     Manure  from  Orange  County  dairies  amounted  to  $6128.50. 

The  great  bulk  of  the  milk  produced  by  these  dairies  was  sold  as  whole  milk 
but  paid  for  in  accordance  with  its  butterfat  content.  Occasionally,  in  times  of 
a  surplus  or  with  milk  not  up  to  standard,  a  little  milk  was  skimmed  and  the 
butterfat  sold.  Out  of  a  total  production  of  18,019,576  pounds  of  whole  milk 
produced,  fully  97  per  cent  was  sold,  with  but  3  per  cent  retained  on  the  ranch 
for  home  use  or  for  feeding  calves.  This  milk  contained  a  total  of  692,993.1 
pounds  of  butterfat,  the  milk  thus  testing  on  an  average  3.84  per  cent  butterfat, 
but  ranging  from  3.3  to  4.4  per  cent.  Of  the  total,  Orange  County  contributed 
3,133,060  pounds  containing  132,672.3  pounds  of  butterfat. 

In  the  entire  district  the  only  swimmilk  reported  consisted  of  1664  pounds 
valued  ut  but  $4.16,  so  for  all  practical  purposes  skimmilk  is  not  to  be  considered 
a  factor  in  He  milk  production  of  this  district. 

The  average  recoids  made  by  the  2242  cows  in  this  district  amounted  to  an 
annual  production  of  8041  pounds  of  whole  milk,  containing  on  an  average  309.2 
pounds  of  butterfat.  The  lowest  record  reported  for  the  district  was  one  of  4389 
poumls  of  whole  milk  containing  169.9  pounds  of  butterfat.  This  was  for  a  herd 
of  90  cows.     Based  on  the  average  per  cow  whole  milk  production,  only  two  herds 


BULLETIN   372]       COST  OF  PRODUCING  MARKET   MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT       105 

averaged  less  than  6000  pounds  per  cow,  while  ten  dairies  were  above  9000  pounds 
and  three  herds  above  10,000  pounds  per  cow.  Measured  on  butterfat  output  only, 
four  dairies  fell  below  an  average  herd  average  of  250  pounds,  while  thirteen  were 
above  a  350  pound  average,  and  two  made  over  400  pounds  per  cow.  These  last 
two  contributed  42  and  75  cows  respectively.  The  best  herd  average  ran  10,205 
pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow,  on  the  42-cow  dairy,  while  the  best  butterfat  yield 
averaged  421.1  pounds  per  cow  per  year,  on  the  75-cow  dairy.  The  average  pro- 
duction for  the  Orange  County  dairies'  cows  ranged  from  6368  to  9557  pounds  of 
whole  milk  to  the  cow,  or  from  245.2  to  388.2  pounds  of  butterfat  a  cow  a  year, 
with  a  general  average  for  all  herds  studied  in  this  county  of  7982  pounds  of  whole 
milk  or  338.0  pounds  of  butterfat  to  the  cow  per  year. 

Based  on  actual  sales  of  milk  at  wholesale  the  average  price  received  from  the 
dairymen  whose  activities  were  covered  by  this  study  and  whose  operations  per- 
mitted the  drawing  of  deductions,  amounted  to  $3.50  a  hundred  pounds  of  whole 
milk,  or  91.5  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat  sold  in  whole  milk. 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

The  individual  costs  of  producing  whole  milk  on  each  of  the  40 
dairies  studied  in  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  district  together  with  the 
amounts  of  the  various  items  entering  into  these  costs  are  set  forth 
in  table  18.  Based  on  these  individual  dairies  the  cost,  though  aver- 
aging 97  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat,  actually  varied  from  as  low 
as  67.5  cents  to  as  high  as  $1.34  a  pound  of  butterfat  produced.  Of 
the  40  dairies  the  cost  ran  above  $1.00  a  pound  on  17  dairies. 

The  dairies  numbered  from  123  to  143  inclusive  were  in  Orange 
County,  those  from  82  to  93  inclusive  and  352  to  367  inclusive  in 
Los  Angeles  County,  and  those  from  400  to  404  inclusive  in  San 
Bernardino  County. 

9.    SAN    DIEGO    DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

The  study  in  San  Diego  County  was  completed  with  13  dairies. 
These  were  summarized  and  are  here  inserted  at  the  request  of  those 
in  this  county  who  are  interested  in  learning  the  outcome  of  the 
survey  in  this  particular  section.  Of  the  18  dairies  listed  for  record- 
taking,  5  dropped  out,  thus  leaving  13  only  for  the  final  summarizing 
and  analyzing.  These  13  dairies  were  scattered  generally  over  the 
county  in  the  various  valleys  where  dairying  is  carried  on.  There 
is  no  single  outstanding  dairy  belt,  dairies  being  located  here  and 
there  in  areas  favorably  situated  for  feed  production  and  marketing 
of  product.  These  dairies  are  all  contributory  to  San  Diego,  but  are 
located  as  follows:  5  near  Escondido,  2  near  San  Diego,  and  1  each 
near  Oceanside,  Ramona,  San  Marcos,  Barrett,  Bonita  and  El  Cajon. 


CN   t> 

OS    C\ 

-.ft 

rH    OS    00    CO    CO    rH 

(O    CO    00   N   N    N 

co 

CO 
CM 

«#    rH 

CM 

rH 

d 

CM 

402.95 
9701 

$4.15 
388.7 

CO 

d 
o 

CO    rH    00    l>    rJ4    rH 

O    rH    t> 

CM 

rH     CC 
05    C 

M    U5    O    00   N    (O   N 
CO    IO   t>    CO    rH    00    rH 

00   l>    00    lO    (N    <N 

!D   (ON    H 

CO 

IO 

00 
«©   CM 

rt4 

U5 

o       o 

rH              rH 
N>              00 

«©   CM 

CM            CO 
CN 

8     1 

CO 

d 

o  t> 

OS    If 

H     H     ^    N     H    (O 
rH     00    ON     t>     CO     rH 

»o 

CD 

io 
e©  cm 

»o 

rJ4 

rH             OS 

iO 

rH              CM 

rH              (^ 

«©   CM 

CO              rH 
CO 

CM 
CO           CN 
«©           CO 

OS 
T}4 

H    ^    CO    <ON    H 
ID     rH     rH 

00   1> 

CN    CN    O    rH    00   CN    O 
rH    CO    lO    rH    lO    tJ4    00 

h-"  i-I  ■>#"  o  ■*  eo'  <N 

WHHN 
«©    -I    <N 

00 
CO 

rJ4 

rH 

€©   rH 

U3 

O 

CO* 

co         io 

CO           CM 
O 

rH                O 
CO               rH 
«#    rH 

O               rH 
CO 

T44*              CM 
«©             rH 

rH 

CN 

O 

co  a 

00   »C 

00    rH    rH    rH    00    CO    O 
(D   N    N    lO   00   CC    M 

>                      

>  H    00   N   H    <#    <#    N 

N     M    H     H     H 
9&               .-4 

rH 

CM 

CO 

m  cm 

CN 
rH 

d 

<M 

00             rH 
CM 

O           CD 

<&  CM 

OS              rH 

CM 

CO 

co        os 

6©           CN 

r+< 
CO 

CM    CO 
00   Cv 

»   (N    N    H    Tf    N    00 
00    O    I>    i>    rH    ©    CO 

io  oo  d  h  oo  ri  n 

O    Ol   IM    H    H 

«©              rH              * 

CO 

m  co 

rH 
rH 

d 

CM 

CM            CO 

CO 

O           OS 

CO           CO 

«©   <M 

CN            CO 

CO 
CO           t> 

e©        co 

rH 
rJ4 

1> 

Si   * 

m  ^  o  io  h  n  o 

<*   00   03   H   to   H   to 

N-*    CN 1   l>    I>    <N    OS 

lO   00    (N 
«©             rH 

CO 
!> 

00 

m  cm 

l> 

r* 

rth 
CM 

OS 

CM            00 

o 

CO           CO 
CD           00 
«©   CM 

t>              rH 

co'        co 

«©           CO 

lO 

d 

rH    « 

IT 

oc 

N    tP    O    MM    * 
rH    rH     rH    O    CO    OS 

rH 

8 

m  co 

O 

OS 
00            CO 
rH             |> 
«©    CO 

CN            CO 

rH 

rH             CO 

m          CO 

OS 

d 

CO 

j  o>  os  t>  os  i>  t-i 

CO    CM    CM 

2- 

a 

p- 

cc 

CO    CO    b-    CN    rH    CM 

CO     CO     CO     >0     lO     rH 

rH 
OS 

CO 
00 

m  co 

OS 
rH 

IO 

rH             CD 

.        •             t* 

CM           CN 

t^           OS 

€©   CO 

CN            lO 
O 

lO 
rH             rH 

m       co 

CO 

o 

©    rH     IO    rH    CO    rH 
CO     CO     CO     rH 

Tf    N    ffl    «■*    O 
O    "3    lO    lO   CO    lO 

to 

rH 
00 

CM 

i 

CN            OS 

o 

CO           CO 

t^        os 
m  co 

CO           CN 

°.       d 

Z     8 

CO 
OS 

CO    O    CO    CM    CO    CN 
IQ    CO   CO           i-H 
CM 

00    „ 
CO    £ 

cc 
ir 

*** 

rH     CM     CO     rH     O     rH 
rH     CO    O     CO     CO     rH 

rH 

O 
CM 

e©  co 

CO 
os 

d 

CM 

CO 

IO             rH 

O 

rH             OS 

OS             CO 

m  cm 

rH 

co        i> 

«©          CO 

00 
00 

CO    CO   t>    TJ4    CO    CO 
CO    CM    * 

Ss 

c 
c 

CO    rH    CO    rH    O    »D 

o 

CD 

»o 
e©  co 

co 

rH 

d 

rH 

CD           t» 

IO 

CD           t^ 

CO           CO 

m  co 

CO           CN    ■ 

OS 

rH             O 
«©             CO 

CO 

d 
o 

00     rH    CO    O     CO     rH 
N     CO     CO    H 

§2 

rt 
rt 

cc 

CO    OS    CO    CO    rH    CM 

CO     O     rH     CO     lO     rH 

co 
os 

Tt4 

CO 

d 

CO 

O           CO 

co 

rH             CO 
rH             CO 
«©    CO 

O           CO 
rH 

d        co 

«©          CO 

00 

o 

00    00     rH     rH     CO     CM 
rH     CM     CO 

22 

ir 

CO    CO    OS    t>    O    CO 
(N00ONHN 

8 

rH 
«©    rH 

CM 
CM 

d 

CO 

CM               rH 

CM 

rH             OS 
&>    rH 

CO           CN 
00 

00 

r*4               CO 

m        co 

CO 
CO 

CO    lO   ©    iO   CO    CM 

CO    CO    CM     rH     rH 

CM 

as 

t-    I>   CN    h    o>   rH    00 

rH    ©    t>    IO    CO    OS    rH 

M   CO  N*    iO  N   N    lO 
N   >o  M  lO 

CO 
I> 

CO 

CO 

S&   CO 

co 

CO 

IO 

OS                rH 

<M 

rH             IO 
CN            00 

m  co 

CO          o 
CM 

CO              rH 

m       co 

o 

d 

o 

2  S 

CO   N    C»   <o    H   «   N 
KJ    O)    H    CO    ^    H    N 



O)  N    r>    00   N   CN    lO 
N   N    CC   CO    N    H 

«#              rH               rH 

CO 
CO 

CM 

«©   rH 

8 

CO 

CO 

o        r- 

>o 
OS          iO 

os        os 
m  co 

t^           CM 

d 

rH             rH 
«©              CO 

o 
d 

CM 

g2 

CC 

c 
cc 

*>* 

CO    CM    CM    OS    CO    CO 

CM     CM     rH     CM     TJ4     rH 

CD 
IO 

d 

rH 
00 

CM* 

CN 

t^             CO 

o 
r^        io 

00          00 

m  cn 

00              CN 

CO 

lO 

co        co 

t&           CO 

d 

00    rH     rH     rH     IQ     rH 
CO    CO    CM 

3- 

O    ^    O)    CO    M    "O    N 
O   O   O   b-    OS   00   rJ4 

^'    CO    CO    CO    fj   N    H 
N    CO    CM    H 

co 
o 

d 

€»    CO 

rH 
OS 

CN 

rH              l> 

co 

rH             00 
O           CO 
S#   CO 

IO          OS 

rH 

CO 
rH             O 
«©             CO 

o 
d 

OS 

§£ 

c 
« 

CO     rH     IO    O    CM     CO 
IO     rH     IO     rH     CO     O 

rH 

o 

CM 

rH 
CM* 

o 

OS           CO 

rH 

OS           iO 

O             CO 

m  co 

CO             CN 

IO 
rH             rH 
S©           CN 

CO 

d 

CM 

CO     IC     CD     CO    CM     rH 

1>   CM    CO 

CM    ^ 

rH     O     rH     rH     O     CM 
IO     IO     CO     CM     CM     rH 

d 

<^   CO 

CD 
CD 

d 

O          00 

O          CO 

m  co 

b-           CM 

rH            CO 

m       co 

d 

00 

CM    rH    CO    rH    ►>.    rH 
O    CM    CO 

*3    *J    - 

cc 

CO 

cc 

N    H    00    N    O    N 
OS    CO    CO    CN    »0    rH 

co 

rJ4 

d 
e©  co 

rH 
CO 

d 

CN 

CO            —< 

rH 

OS           O 

OS           CO 

«©   CN 

CO            CM 

os 
CO          o 
¥*          CO 

o 

OS 

00    CM    iO    t-    CO    CM 
t-    CM    CO 

C 
> 

'5 
0 

I 

c 

1  '  c 
c 

z 

i 

t 

a. 

!   1  «i   1  g, 

;     :  g)    :   C 

to    co    ^    Mj3 

a  *?-§  a  « 

«        S         h-    rfl      ^ 

.ti  rd    2>  «    a 

1  -g  1  S  I" 

"■a 

co  r-i 

8  T 

o  £ 
H  O 

rCt 

s 

a 
1 

a 

o 

rfl 

*o 

s9 
o   a 

'43    cs 

O       r« 

*o 

•4-5    ^ 

II 

-r»     -d 

0 

:   d 

CQ    J2 

«*-,      -Q      «« 

o  —•    O 

111 

rSJ 

*o 
rd 

2  S 

c 

11 

" 

C>    CO    b-    CO 


CO   l>    CO   CO    »o 


CO 

go 

c*» 

CO 

00 

a» 

o 

00 
00 

CO    CO    CO    CN 


O    t--    CN    -I 


CN  O 

CO*  O 

CO 


O    CN    00    CO    CO 


CO  O 

CN  -l 


H     00     ffl     O^      H 

CO   N   O    lO   N   M 


.-I  CO 

CM  S 


ffl    N    lOO    00    N    lO 


Ol   O)    N    iO 


m  cn 


iO  »o 
CO  >o 


(O   N    K5   N    lO 

io  co  b-  t~-  a 


t>    05    lO    <-H    »H 


■>#    lO    CM    Tt<    00    lO    — i 
00    OS    O    00    05    CO    CN 

N    H   00    O)   CO    CO    "5 


H    lO    lfl 

CD    CO    H 

N 

CO 

<* 

56.23 

183.74 

16.05 

CO 
OS 

CO 

cn 

CO 

CD    O    00 

Tt<     rH     lO 

8 

LO 
<* 

t> 

CN 


Ss 


00    ^    ^    CD    h    CO 


lO    OS    CO    CN 


CO  rH  t> 


O     o 

'3   o 


+3 


8  ^ 


2  1  a 


i-a 

?     03 


s£ 


u 


^  a  ^ 

O    +»   <*h 

ago 
O 


J  8 

•    °  Xt 

•2  A  ?  * 

111.9 

•g  S«a 


108  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Ten  of  the  records  were  taken  for  the  year  beginning  March  1, 
1922,  2  ran  from  January  1,  1922,  and  1  from  April  1,  1922. 

These  13  dairies  utilized  1902  acres  of  land.  The  land  consisted 
principally  of  bottom  land  used  for  alfalfa,  corn  and  grain  produc- 
tion, and  rolling  hills  from  which  a  negligible  amount  of  pasture  was 
obtained.  Pasturing  between  cuttings  of  alfalfa  or  after  crops  was 
sometimes  practiced  but  in  general  pasturing  comprised  a  secondary 
and  rather  unimportant  factor  in  the  feeding  of  the  milking  herd. 
Six  of  the  13  dairymen  reported  no  pasture,  and  the  others  in  many 
instances  had  no  definite  pasture  lands.  Pasturage,  when  available, 
usually  took  place  between  December  and  June  for  the  hill  lands, 
and  between  March  and  October  on  the  swamp  lands.  The  size  of  the 
holdings  ranged  from  25  to  500  acres,  there  being  eight  of  100  acres 
or  less  in  size,  while  the  others  consisted  respectively  of  200,  200,  270, 
286,  and  500  acres  each. 

Feeds  for  the  milking  herd  were  made  up  of  hay,  concentrates, 
and  silage,  supplemented  with  roughage  such  as  green  alfalfa,  green 
corn,  corn  stalks,  and  some  pasture.  The  feeding  program  consisted 
in  most  instances  of  year-round  feeding  of  hay,  usually  alfalfa — 
although  some  use  was  made  of  barley,  oats,  and  Sudan  grass  hay, 
corn  silage  during  some  portion  of  the  year  but  principally  in  the  fall 
and  winter  months,  and  year-round  feeding  of  concentrates.  Every 
one  of  these  13  dairymen  fed  concentrates  consistently,  12  fed  silage, 
and  12  practiced  year  round  feeding  of  alfalfa  as  hay  or  cut  green, 
sometimes  supplemented  with  green  corn.  The  thirteenth  fed  oat 
hay  for  six  months,  having  available  pasturage  for  the  remainder 
of  the  year.  Considerable  choice  of  concentrates  was  reported,  those 
in  greatest  favor  being  cottonseed  meal,  barley,  beet  pulp,  bran,  mill 
feeds,  with  some  use  of  coconut  meal,  corn  meal,  rice  bran,  linseed 
oil  meal,  ground  oats,  and  wheat.  Six  dairymen  varied  their  feeding 
program  to  include  four  concentrates  during  the  year,  2  each  fed  5 
and  6  kinds,  while  1  each  fed  2,  3,  and  8  kinds  respectively.  Seven 
dairymen  reported  the  use  of  pasture. 

The  total  average  number  of  cows  maintained  throughout  the  year 
in  these  13  dairies  amounted  to  583  head.  The  sizes  of  herds  ran 
from  20  to  107.  There  were  four  herds  of  from  20  to  27,  four  of 
from  34  to  38,  three  of  40,  43,  and  51  respectively,  one  of  105,  and 
one  of  107.     The  average  of  all  herds  amounted  to  45. 

Five  breeds  were  represented.  Six  herds  consisted  of  Jerseys, 
while  the  remaining  seven  consisted  as  follows :  Jersey  and  Holstein ; 
Holstein  and  Guernsey ;  Holstein,  Shorthorn,  and  Jersey ;  Holstein, 
Guernsey,  and  Jersey;  Holstein;  Guernsey;  Shorthorn  and  Ayrshire. 


Bulletin  372]      COst  OF  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  butterfat      109 

Both  registered  and  purebred  bulls  and  cows  were  found  on  most 
of  the  dairies  but  in  this  section  no  inventory  was  taken  of  the  actual 
number. 

All  but  two  dairymen  practiced  year  round  breeding'  to  insure  a 
constant  supply  of  milk.  The  exceptions  bred  for  either  August 
and  September  or  May  and  June  freshening. 

Milking  on  12  of  the  13  dairies  is  done  twice  a  day,  on  the  thir- 
teenth three  times,  at  3  p.m.,  1  a.m.  and  8  a.m.  On  one  of  the  other 
12  a  few  of  the  cows  are  also  milked  three  times  daily.  Where  twice 
a  day  milking  was   practiced,   the  hours   for  milking   ranged   from 


-         :-v-              '.,*'*'»                              'i    :         '■   '■ '  *■.'•:      '  '  •■         '    ' 

V;  1 

■      ■■!■  H  MillM  "111— 1 

■  i  iiiiiF 

r* 

,  ,.'„                -            ■ 

Fig.  15. — Jersey  cows.     Typical  dairy  cows  of  San  Diego  County. 

1 :30  a.m.  and  1 :30  p.m.  to  5  a.m.  and  5  p.m.,  with  most  of  the  milking 
taking  place  at  4  a.m.  and  4  p.m.  Milking  machines  were  used  on 
five  dairies,  hand  milking  being  practiced  on  the  others. 

All  the  dairymen  gave  their  nationality  as  American,  one  qualify- 
ing as  Danish- American.  The  use  of  American  milkers  was  generally 
reported  with  some  Indian,  German,  Italian  and  English. 

On  12  of  the  13  dairies,  production  of  market  milk  was  the  prin- 
cipal aim.  On  the  thirteenth,  butterfat  was  sold  as  cream,  the  skim- 
milk  being  made  into  cottage  cheese  and  sold  wholesale.  During  the 
year,  sales  of  whole  milk  (and  cream  in  one  case)  were  made  to  the 
Milk  Producers  Association  of  San  Diego  County,  to  Robert  Foss  of 
Escondido,  to  H.  B.  Weston  and  to  Fred  Allen,  both  of  San  Diego, 
and  to  the  San  Diego  P.  M.  Dairy. 

Ten  of  the  13  dairymen  owned  the  dairies  under  their  charge, 
1  was  a  tenant,  and  2  were  superintendents. 


110  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Summary  of  Costs 

The  various  items  entering  the  cost  of  producing  dairy  products 
in  this  section  are  assembled  in  the  table  immediately  following. 

TABLE  19 

Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — San  Diego  County 

Number  of  dairies 13 

Number  of  cows 583 

Number  of  bulls 23 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  85,246  hours $28,480.00 

Man — management 7,983.00 

Horse,  5,273  hours 939.99 

Truck  and  automobile,  5,755  miles 575.50 

Insurance 302.43 

Total  labor  cost $38,280.92 

Feed 

Pasture $4,105.00 

Hay,  1322.53  tons 28,532.78 

Concentrates,  583.04  tons 24,633.75 

Silage,  1342.1  tons 10,542.52 

Green  feed,  1002  tons 6,438.50 

Insurance 118.00 

Total  feed  cost 74,370.55 

Hauling  milk 7,199.39 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 5,291.95 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  6%  on  $1250 75.00 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle,  $86,939.50 

@6% 5,216.37 

Mortality:  25  cows,  $3243;  1  bull,  $50 3,293.00 

Depreciation 5,097.50 

Taxes 748.27 

Insurance 10-00 

Gross  herd  charge $14,365.14 

Credits 6,163.55 

Net  herd  charge 8,201.59 

Building  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $31,944  @6% 1,916.64 

Depreciation 1,663.00 

Upkeep 636.75 

Taxes 164.14 

Insurance 186.95 

Total  buildings  charge 4,567.48 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     111 

Corral  charges 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes $274.50 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $7,395.50 

@6% 443.73 

Depreciation  of  improvements 908.00 

Upkeep 19.82 

Total  corral  charge 1,646.05 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $9,147  @  6% 548.82 

Depreciation ,.         1,842.25 

Upkeep 1,476.71 

Taxes 34.14 

Total  equipment  charge 3,901.92 

Total  gross  cost $143,534.85 

Credits 

Manure $5,546.00 

Calves,  444 . 4,674.97 

Total  credits $10,220.97 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $133,313.88 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 3,629,419  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $3.67 

Total  production  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 155,923  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk 86  cents 

6225  pounds  of  whole  milk 


Average  annual  production  per  cow.... 

[  267.3  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Costs  Findings 

The  13  herds  included  in  the  study  conducted  in  San  Diego  County  were 
assessed  for  taxes  at  $17,360.  Dairy  equipment  assessments  amounted  to  $900. 
Prorata  of  building  assessments,  chargeable  against  the  dairy,  amounted  to  $3850. 
The  tax  rate  varied  from  $2.71  to  $5.64  per  $100  of  assessment.  The  amount  of 
taxes  paid  totaled  $748.27  on  dairy  cattle,  $164.14  on  buildings,  and  $34.14  on 
dairy  equipment. 

Insurance  was  carried  on  buildings,  workmen,  cattle,  and  feed.  Ten  dairymen 
carried  insurance  on  buildings,  7  on  employers ?  liability,  1  on  cattle,  and  3  on  feed. 
The  amounts  carried  are  shown  in  table  19. 

The  average  cost  for  manual  labor  used  on  these  13  dairies  amounted  to  33.4 
cents  per  hour.  Twelve  of  the  dairymen  placed  a  figure  for  time  spent  in  manage- 
ment, amounting  to  about  28  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor  expenditure. 

Horse  labor  was  utilized  on  but  four  dairies,  and  cost  from  8.1  to  27.6  cents 
per  hour.  The  average  cost  amounted  to  17.8  cents  per  hour.  Total  use  amounted 
to  5273  hours. 

One  truck  and  three  automobiles  figured  in  carrying  on  the  dairy  work  on 
as  many  dairies.  Cost  of  operating  averaged  10  cents  a  mile  for  a  total  use  of 
5755  miles. 

The  general  practice  iu  feeding  has  already  been  touched  upon.  Pasturing 
was  practiced  by  only  7  per  cent  of  the  13  dairymen.     For  those  who  pastured, 


112  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.   16. — Typical   dairy   layouts  and   conditions  where  studies  were  conducted 
in  San  Diego  County. 


Bulletin   372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      113 


Fig.  16. —  (Continued.) 


114  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

the  cost  was  $12.59  per  cow  per  year.  The  cost  per  ton  of  feeds  used  during  the 
year  on  these  13  dairies  averaged:  Hay,  $21.57;  concentrates,  $42.67;  silage,  $7.86; 
green  feed,  $6.42. 

Totals  spent  for  contract  hauling,  purchase  of  supplies,  payments  for  cow  test- 
ing, and  similar  items  are  set  forth  in  the  table.  Nine  of  the  13  dairymen  paid 
for  contract  hauling,  while  all  had  miscellaneous  expenditures  to  meet.  Operating 
capital  amounted  to  $1250,  most  of  the  dairymen  running  bills  during  the  month 
and  paying  for  them  with  the  milk  check  so  that  operating  capital  remained  at  a 
rather  low  level. 

The  investment  in  milking  herds  during  the  year  that  these  dairies  were  under 
observation  amounted  to  $86,939.50,  of  which  $7500  was  in  bull  values  and  the 
balance  in  cows.  Bulls,  therefore,  made  up  slightly  more  than  8  per  cent  of  the 
total  and  cows  slightly  less  than  92  per  cent.  Average  cow  values  of  individual 
herds  ran  from  $77.50  a  head  to  $277,  with  an  average  value  for  the  district  of 
$136.26.     Bull  values  ranged  from  $100  to  $700,  averaging  $326. 

Based  on  sales,  deaths,  purchases,  and  heifers  brought  into  the  milking  strings, 
the  13  dairies  registered  an  appreciation  in  the  value  of  the  cows  maintained, 
amounting  to  $1126.05.  Five  dairies  reported  appreciation  in  their  milking  herds, 
while  eight  reported  a  depreciation.  Bulls  showed  a  net  depreciation  of  $160,  thus 
bringing  the  net  appreciation  of  both  cows  and  bulls  to  $966.05. 

During  the  year  covered  by  the  record-taking,  25  cows  died  valued  at  $3243, 
and  1  bull  valued  at  $50.  Based  on  the  average  number  maintained  in  the  milk- 
ing herds,  this  amounted  to  4.4  per  cent  of  the  cows,  and  4  per  cent  of  the  bulls. 
The  average  value  of  cows  dying  amounted  to  close  to  $150,  or  an  average  higher 
than  the  average  value  reported  for  all  the  cows  covered  by  this  study. 

Dairy  building  equipment  consisted  of  a  milking  barn  and  milk  house  on  each 
dairy,  with  one  dairy  possessing  a  second  milk  house,  14  silos  on  11  dairies,  and 
13  shelter  and  feed  barns  on  11  dairies.  The  investment  in  dairy  buildings  varied 
from  $616  to  $6047,  with  an  average  investment  of  $2457.  The  investment  on  the 
different  dairies  was  variable,  2  dairies  having  an  investment  of  less  than  .$1000, 
5  of  from  $1000  to  $2000,  2  of  from  $2000  to  $3000,  while  the  remaining  4  had 
investments  of  $3969,  $4115,  $4859,  and  $6047.  Seven  dairymen  spent  money  for 
building  upkeep,  ranging  from  $8  to  $445,  and  totaling  $636.75,  which  was  2  per 
cent  of  the  investment  in  buildings.  Depreciation  of  dairy  buildings  totaled  $1663 
and  thus  amounted  to  about  5  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

Land  required  for  corrals  and  dairy  buildings  totaled  57  acres,  having  a  rental 
value  of  $274.50,  or  $4.82  per  acre  per  year.  The  investment  in  improvements 
such  as  fences  and  watering  facilities  amounted  to  $7395.50,  ranging  from  $95 
to  $1194,  and  averaging  $568.88.  Depreciation  of  these  improvements  totaled 
$908,  or  a  little  over  12  per  cent  of  the  investment.  Upkeep  of  corrals  necessitated 
but  little  expenditure. 

Dairying  equipment  reported  consisted  of  2  separators,  9  milking  machines, 
237  milk  cans,  50  milk  pails,  5  milk  vats,  11  sterilizers,  12  aerators  and  vats,  5 
boilers,  3  scales,  6  washtubs,  8  wheelbarrows,  3  milk  fever  outfits,  3  veterinary 
outfits,  2  refrigerating  machines,  17  hay  forks,  12  brooms,  8  shovels,  15  lanterns, 
and  miscellaneous  items  as  feed  carts,  fuel  tank,  mixing  bin,  litter  truck,  silage 
trucks,  dehorner,  scrapers,  fly  sprayers,  gas  engine,  motor,  milk  testing  outfit,  and 
wagon.  The  total  investment  in  these  items  amounted  to  $9147,  ranging  on  the 
different  dairies  from  $28  to  $1968,  with  an  average  investment  of  $703.61.     All 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      115 

dairymen  found  it  necessary  Co  make  expenditures  for  dairy  equipment  upkeep, 
the  total  amounting  to  $1476.71,  or  close  to  16  per  cent  of  the  average  yearly 
investment.  Depreciation  of  dairy  equipment  amounted  to  $1842.25,  or  about 
20  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

Miscellaneous  returns  consisted  of  receipts  from  sales  of  feed  sacks  amount- 
ing to  $243.50,  and  bull  service  amounting  to  $100.  These  items  were  credited 
directly  to  the  department  concerned. 

A  total  of  444  calves  was  reported  as  a  credit  to  the  dairies,  amounting  to 
$6474.97,  or  averaging  $14.58  per  head  at  the  time  that  the  dam's  milk  was 
fit  for  human  consumption.     Values  reported  ranged  from  $1.50  to  $75  per  head. 

Sales  of  manure  from  the  dairies  amounted  to  $572,  which  added  to  the  value 
ascribed  to  the  manure  used  on  the  ranch  totaled  $5546. 

The  total  production  from  these  13  dairies  stated  in  terms  of  whole  milk 
amounted  to  3,629,419  pounds  containing  155,823  pounds  of  butterfat.  The  tests 
ran  from  3.7  to  5  per  cent  butterfat,  with  an  average  test  for  the  total  produc- 
tion of  4.3  per  cent.  Of  the  total  production,  88  per  cent  was  sold,  the  remainder 
being  used  by  the  dairymen's  families  or  for  calves.  Family  use  totaled  8256 
gallons  or  71,001  pounds. 

The  average  production  per  cow  per  year  made  by  the  583  cows  studied  in 
this  district  amounted  to  6225  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  267  pounds  of  butterfat. 
Based  on  herd  average  performance,  the  lowest  yield  for  a  single  dairy  amounted 
to  177  pounds  of  butterfat;  the  highest,  434  pounds.  Figured  as  whole  milk,  the 
lowest  annual  average  per  cow  was  4303  pounds;  the  highest,  11,152  pounds.  Of 
the  13  dairies,  the  average  of  6  was  below  250  pounds  of  butterfat  per  cow  per 
year.     The  average  of  10  was  under  7000  pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow  per  year. 

Based  on  actual  sales  of  whole  milk  made  from  the  dairies  which  confined  their 
activities  to  the  production  of  whole  milk  for  the  wholesale  market,  the  average 
price  received  throughout  the  year  amounted  to  $3.57  a  hundredweight  of  whole 
milk.  This  is  equivalent  to  80.2  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat  contained  in  the  milk 
sold. 

Cost  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

For  purposes  of  showing  the  wide  range  in  the  amounts  of  the 
different  items  entering  into  the  cost  of  producing  milk  as  reflected 
by  individual  dairies,  as  well  as  to  permit  the  making  of  comparisons, 
table  20  sets  forth  the  cow  cost  for  each  group  of  items  which  are 
shown  summarized  in  the  district  table  already  presented  for  each 
of  the  13  dairies.  The  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  ranged  from  a 
low  of  $2.57  to  a  high  of  $5.43,  with  an  average  of  $3.67  a  hundred- 
weight. In  terms  of  butterfat,  since  this  is  the  basis  upon  which  the 
dairymen  are  paid,  the  range  was  from  65  cents  to  $1.10,  with  an 
average  of  86  cents  a  pound.  Six  men  produced  at  or  below  the 
average  cost  for  the  district,  the  remaining  seven  above. 


00    00   ©    00    CO    t^    Cs 

00  oc 

o 

co 

c 

8  «■ 

CO    ^ 

tO    M    00t»    ©    r 

OS 

00    CM    CM    N 

)                     

•    CO       •   b- 

N    M   CO    O   «    r)i    (O           OS    CC 

CM    *#    CO    i- 

00 

**    OS           CM    CM 

t-    C 

k       n<  ■*  as 

rH                        * 

CM    i- 

©S 

as 

as 

<*   O  O   H   «   O   ifl          cow 

00           CO 

o 

CO    „. 
CO    ^ 

(O    N    N    (0U3   N« 

CO  o 

CO    tH    t*    CN 



•    CM       -OS 

d 

o)  oo  O)        f~ 

t^    IT 

i-l    OS    'O    CN 

HON           <-" 

rH 

(N  io  as 

r-l     rH               * 

co 

CO 

as 

aS 

as 

ffl    lOO    N   M    CO   O)           rH    C 

--4                OS 

o 

co  ^ 

O    O    CM    CO    CO    r- 

ec 

00  c 

00    CO    iO    c 

.  o      •  - 

<# 

MOlfflNNr 

115    ©    H 

ec 

CO   cc 

o 

t^    CO    Tt<    CN 

os  rt<  as 

OS 

as 

CM 

as 

as 

rH     >C     O     CM     T}t     C 

IC 

b-    tC- 

l>             00 

o 

00    _ 

2  ^ 

O    O    CO   CM    ©    C 

o 

rn     W 

CO    00    00    cc 

•     00          •     Tf 

d 

"#    CO    t^    00    CO    CM 

<* 

CM*    O 

<N    rj<    CO    CN 

00 

iO   CM    CM    CM 

■*    CN 

CM 

as 

CN 

as 

00   00   o   ■*   CO   -* 

o 

CM    CO 

o>        t^ 

o 

t-*. 

2  « 

M    (N    H    O)    Ol    « 

o 

cs  i- 

N    CN    U3    rt 

•    io       •    cr 

to 

CM    rjJ    CM    CO    TjJ    CN 

cd  c 

CO    i-H     CM     rf 

CO 

o    t>-    rH    b- 

OS    — 

00   r-i   as 

— i    CM           * 

CO    — 

CM    r-H 

as 

as 

as 

N    M    <D    O    00    <E 

0- 

OS    r- 

00          c 

o 

us  h« 

00  c 

MN    O!    OtDC 

oc 

CO    CC 

O    i1    LO   N 

CM    d    ©    CO    00    CN 

0C 

t-'    l> 

•    CO       ■    Oi 
O    Tt<    CO   CM 

00 
00 

CD    Tf     H     (N 

as  rH 

CO 
CM 
9^ 

co  t^  as- 

<N 

as 

hnn  nocr 

10 

o        co 

o 

^ 

^    CO   N   M    (M    CN 

CO 

CO   £ 

«    O    to    r- 

•  io     -co 

N^    00    CO*    t>    <35    CN 

"* 

CM    0C 

•^    CM    CM    CN 

l» 

CO    t^    CO 

as 

l> 

co  co  as 
as 

O    OS   O    00    O    Tf 

cc 

t^     r- 

CO             ■* 

o 

N    (15   O    N    U3    <C 

c 

00    10 

CO    OS    OS    N. 

2  5 

•    00       •    Tf 

IQ 

O    t*<    Tj<    OS    CO 

00  t^ 

h    Tf    N    (M 

CO 

rft    C3>    rH 

CO 

co  >o  as 

<SS 

5& 

as 

O    OiO    tOOlC 

CO 

io  r^ 

00         o 

o 

o  >c: 

00   c 

iO    CO    CO    -^    CO    CT 

ec 

o>  oc 

O     CO     r-i     C 

O    "O    O    -rji    t*    CO 

<* 

CO    IT 

•    CM        •    "tf 

00    N    CO    OJ 

10    00    CM    rH 

00 

t-  io  as 

as 

as 

as 

O    to    M    N    O)    'f 

CC 

lO  c 

io        co 

o 

g£ 

O    OS    CO    CO    CO    iC 

X 

t^  o 

00      CO      H      r- 

■    CM        •    C 

CO 

S   O  »  S  N  H 

CO 

cd  t> 

oocne 

00 

00    CB    •*    H 

lO 

t*<  co  as 

as 

1    ^ 

1    m 

CM 

as 

CO    (N    CO    ■*    CM    OC 

o 

r-i    O 

CM          o 

o 

00      - 

tO   tO    H    H    r|l    1C 

CO 

OS    OC 

O    -h    io    t+ 

N.    ur- 

-  co     •  cc 

T-H         ^ 

S    N   N    CO    Ol    Tt 

cc 

CM    10 

t^    OS    tH    CN 

o 

WHOfl 

t^ 

co  io  as 

as  rH 

CM 

as 

CM 

as 

O    CO    CM    O    CO    lit 

0C 

tJ<     CC 

00           ^ 

o 

t"-    ^ 

OS    ©    ©    U7)    OS    CN 

CO 

O    CN 

t^    CM    CO    OS 

k  ^ 

■       T-i              ■       t~~ 

^ 

r-l     N 

d  in  m  os  io  ic 

CO    <M    CM    "cH 

«s  --H 

c 

OS   o 
CM 

as 

OS    00    r(<    CN 

co  io  as 

CM 

1      ¥* 

os 

N    Ol    tO    O    tO    >- 
OS    00    rfi    OS    CO    CO 

c 

00    Ti- 

Tt<                tH 

o 

co  ~- 

t^ 

CO    CO 

CO    OS    iC    CC 

rt  oc 

•     r-l          •     C 

>o 

u;  « 

(N    «d    r-I    TjJ    TjJ    T* 

CO 

00    N 

h    H    rf    C 

o 

CD    OS    CO    CM 

CM 

cm  t^  as 

as  -h 

co 
as 

co 
as 

"o   "5 

CO    h-    IQ    b-    -^    CN 

o 

O    CO 

t^         t^ 

o 

•  'C  ro 

(O    i(J    iO    O    00    OC 

o  r- '■  T-*  tj<  t>  cn 

ec 

ec 

CM    iO 

cd  t^ 

to  io  to  h 

■    CM        •    CC 
00    CM    CO    CN 

d 

00 

ON    N    H 

-*  — 

cm  co  as 

<j  p 

m    rH 

CM 

a=» 

CM 

as 

<u 

^- 

"o 

^ 

s 

is 

■0-3    ' 

fl 

c    2  "c 

•" 

3  -5    e 

+3 

-C 

o    ^    -: 

ei 

t- 

a  ^.  c 

1 

a 
b 

a 
b 

El 

'1 

0 

a. 

1 

a 

6 

s 

,-a 

) 

1 

n 
£ 

M 
£ 

x. 

of  whole  milk 
ndredweight  o: 

1 

i 

c 
!Z 
> 
'S 

c 

6 
8 

.  '  c 
c 

5   c 

Si 

"3    l-J 

o  " 

o 

a 

C 

% 

g 

— 
- 

1 

a 

tE 

1 

0^ 

I 

c 

3 
£ 
- 
■s 
E 
W 

I 

"     1 

Eh 

1 

a 

0 

1 

1 

G 
c 

T 

P.    s 

c3ri 

ft 

(-. 

<v 

ft 

-b> 

8 

o 

i 

' 

Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERPAT      117 
10.    SAN    LUIS    OBISPO    COUNTY 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Twenty  dairies  are  included  in  the  finding's  for  San  Luis  Obispo 
County,  the  records  covering  the  year  from  January  1,  1922,  to  Janu- 
ary 1,  1923,  in  all  cases.  The  dairying  belt,  of  which  the  dairies 
reported  in  this  study  are  a  part,  lies  along  the  coast  between  Cayucos 
and  Cambria,  centering  around  Harmony.  Five  of  the  dairymen  gave 
their  address  as  Cambria,  3  as  Cayucos,  and  12  as  Harmony.  Dairy- 
ing is  a  major  and  important  enterprise  in  this  section,  being  con- 
ducted on  the  rolling  hills  and  small  valleys,  with  much  of  the  land 
in  pasture,  although  suitable  areas  are  cropped.  The  buildings  are 
located  in  the  carious,  and  the  similarity  in  arrangement  and  type 
of  construction  is  rather  striking,  one  dairy  being  largely  patterned 
after  another.  A  total  of  12,056  acres  was  utilized  by  these  20  dairies 
of  which  9879  acres  were  reported  as  being  maintained  in  permanent 
pastures.  Hence  with  an  average  holding  of  about  600  acres,  82  per 
cent  was  used  for  pastures  and  18  per  cent  cropped.  The  smallest 
holding  of  the  20  amounted  to  160  acres:  the  largest  was  1366  acres. 
Eight  holdings  were  less  than  500  acres  in  extent;  10  of  from  500  to 
886  acres;  and  2  of  more  than  1300  acres,  these  2  being  1320  and  1366 
acres  respectively. 

Oat  hay  was  the  common  roughage.  A  little  alfalfa  was  grown. 
Although  two  or  three  silos  were  under  construction  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  year  covered  by  this  study,  not  a  single  one  of  these  20  dairy- 
men had  an  available  silo  in  use  during  this  study.  Nearly  all  hay 
was  fed  loose.  Outside  of  a  little  hay  sold  to  local  dairymen  when 
themselves  short  of  feed,  there  is  practically  no  market,  the  hauling 
charge  to  the  nearest  shipping  point  during  ordinary  years  being  pro- 
hibitive. Rolled  oats  was  the  more  common  concentrate  feci.  A  little 
cottonseed  meal,  beet  pulp  and  middlings  were  used  by  some  men. 
Two  or  three  used  carrots,  squashes,  pumpkins,  and  beets  raised  on 
an  acre  or  two  of  ground. 

Pasture  was  more  or  less  available  the  year  round.  The  cows  were 
out  at  all  seasons.  The  best  of  the  pasture  season,  however,  was  from 
April  to  October,  supplementary  feeds  of  hay,  roots,  squashes,  and 
concentrates  being  utilized  during  the  remainder  of  the  year,  in 
amounts  depending  upon  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  pasture.  Pas- 
ture is  largely  made  up  of  alfileria,  bur  clover,  foxtail,  wild  oats, 
broncho  grass,  and  similar  common  coast  range  feeds. 


118  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  17. — Typical  range  conditions  of  the  San  Luis  Obispo  area.  Feeds  consist 
largely  of  alfilaria,  bur  clover,  fox  tail,  wild  oats  and  broncho  grass.  The  best 
of  the  pasture  is  available  from  April  to  October. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     119 

These  20  herds  contained  a  total  of  1329  cows,  in  herds  ranging 
from  16  to  167  animals.  Only  a  single  dairy  of  the  group  had  less 
than  30  cows,  11  dairies  had  from  33  to  62  cows;  6  dairies  from  65 
to  98  cows;  and  2  dairies  over  100  cows,  these  containing  145  and 
167  cows  respectively. 

Of  the  20  herds,  15  were  classified  as  scrubs ;  3  herds  as  grade 
Shorthorns;  1  grade  Jersey;  and  1  a  mixture  of  grade  Jerseys  and 
grade  Shorthorns.  Three  dairies  possessed  a  total  of  4  registered 
bulls,  consisting  of  2  Jerseys  and  2  Shorthorns,  Two  registered  Jer- 
sey heifers  were  recorded. 

The  common  practice  is  to  permit  the  bulls  to  run  with  the  cows 
so  that  freshening  will  take  place  during  October,  November,  and 
December,  drying  up  the  cows  for  the  months  of  July,  August,  and 
September. 

Most  of  the  labor  was  done  by  the  family.  When  men  are  hired, 
they  are  expected  to  pitch  in  with  the  family,  lend  a  hand  not  only 
at  milking  but  also  in  the  fields  during  plowing,  planting,  and  har- 
vesting. The  usual  work  day  is  from  12  to  14  hours  in  length.  Most 
milking  is  done  at  4  a.m.  and  again  at  4  p.m. 

Swiss  predominated  in  the  nationalities  of  the  dairymen,  17  dairy- 
men being  so  designated,  although  commonly  American-born.  The 
three  remaining  dairies  were  reported  to  be  in  the  hands  of  Americans. 
Swiss,  American,  Italian,  Spanish,  and  German-American  milkers 
were  recorded.  Both  milk  and  cream  were  sold,  the  former  to  be 
made  into  cheese.  All  milk  or  cream  was  sold  on  a  butterfat  basis, 
and  all  sales  by  the  dairymen  in  this  group  were  made  to  the  Harmony 
Valley  Creamery  Association.  Those  who  sell  cream  have  their  skim- 
milk  for  home  use,  and  those  who  sell  whole  milk  get  the  whey  back, 
these  by-products  being  used  in  feeding  calves  and  hogs.  Butter- 
milk from  the  manufacture  of  butter  is  retained  by  the  creamery. 

Of  these  20  dairies,  12  were  in  the  hands  of  tenants,  6  were 
operated  by  the  owners,  and  2  were  under  a  combination  of  owner- 
tenant. 

Summary  of  Costs 

The  various  cost  items  involved  in  the  production  of  milk  on  the 
20  dairies  studied  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County  are  assembled  and  set 
forth  in  table  21. 


120  UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

TABLE  21 

Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — San  Luis   Obispo   County 

Number  of  dairies 20 

Number  of  cows 1329 

Number  of  bulls 37 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  156,051  hours $37,296.19 

Man — management 6,064.43 

Horse,  12,769  hours 2,805.06 

Truck  and  automobile,  27,198  miles 2,922.01 

Total  labor  cost $49,087.69 

Feed 

Pasture $13,512.21 

Hay,  2264  tons 33,960.00 

Concentrates,  222.97  tons 7,598.77 

Pumpkins,  squashes,  carrots 723.00 

Green  alfalfa,  205  tons 1,025.00 

Straw,  20  tons 200.00 

Total  feed  cost " 57,018.98 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  hauling,  cream,  etc 2,635.45 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  6%  on  $7900 474.00 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle, 

$101,480.51  @  6% 6,088.83 

Mortality:  43  cows,  $2770;  3  bulls,  $185 2,955.00 

Depreciation;  cows,  $1610;  bulls,  $888 2,498.00 

Taxes 881.35 

Insurance none 

Total  herd  charge 12,423.18 

Buildings  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $50,514.50  @  6 %  $3,030.87 

Depreciation 1,311.00 

Upkeep 478.00 

Taxes 210.50 

Insurance 190.48 

Total  buildings  charge 5/220.85 

C  Jorral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes $78.00 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,   $7,779 

@6% 466.74 

Depreciation  of  improvements 451.10 

Upkeep 60,00 

Total  corral  charge 1,055.84 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      121 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $15,059.96  @  6%         $903.60 

Depreciation....: 1,550.25 

Upkeep 718.70 

Taxes 30.89    ' 

Total  equipment  charge 3,203.44 

Total  gross  cost 131,119.43 

Credits 

Manure $450.00 

Calves,  1165 5,601.00 

Skimmilk,  5,107,072  pounds  @  20  cents 

per  100  pounds 10,214.16 

Total  credits $16,265.16 

Net  cost $114,854.27 

Total  production  of  butterfat 214,340.2  pounds 

Average  cost  per  pound  of  butterfat 53.6  cents 

Average  annual  production  per  cow 161.3  pounds  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  livestock  belonging  to  the  20  milking  herds  from  which  the  data  were 
taken  were  assessed  at  $34,989,  of  which  $1890  drew  a  tax  rate  of  $2.85,  with 
the  balance  at  $2.50.  The  assessment  on  dairy  buildings  amounted  to  $8350,  of 
which  $500  was  at  the  rate  of  $2.85.  Dairy  fixtures  assessments  amounted  to 
$1225,  $75  being  at  the  tax  rate  of  $2.85.  One  dairy  was  in  a  community  with  a 
tax  rate  of  $2.85  per  $100;  the  tax  rate  for  the  remainder  being  at  $2.50  per  $100. 

Eleven  of  the  20  dairymen  carried  building  insurance.  No  workmen's  com- 
pensation nor  cattle  insurance  were  reported. 

On  an  average,  the  cost  of  manual  labor  used  by  these  dairies  amounted  to 
23.9  cents  per  hour.  Management  amounted  to  16.3  per  cent  of  the  manual  labor 
cost. 

The  cost  of  horse  labor  varied  from  10.4  to  44.1  cents  per  hour,  the  average 
being  21.9  cents  per  hour.  The  rather  high  rate  holding  for  this  community  is 
traceable  to  the  use  of  saddle  horses,  every  dairy  keeping  one  and  one  dairy 
keeping  two  which,  used  but  a  relatively  short  time  each  day,  resulted  in  a  rate 
somewhat  higher  than  might  otherwise  be  expected.  Teams  are  used  for  dairy 
purposes  only  once  or  twice  a  year,  and  then  for  only  about  a  week's  time  in 
cleaning  corrals.  The  cost  on  four  dairies  was  over  40  cents  per  hour  and  over 
30  cents  on  three  more. 

Only  one  man  had  contract  provision  for  hauling  his  output  to  market,  the 
rate  being  %  cent  a  butterfat  pound;  the  other  19  dairymen  maintained  14  trucks 
and  5  automobiles  for  this  purpose.  Cream  was  hauled  every  two  days  and 
milk  every  day,  as  a  rule.  The  average  cost  of  operation,  based  on  total  work 
done,  amounted  to  10.7  cents  per  mile,  with  a  range  of  from  8.2  cents  to  27.1  cents 
per  mile.     The  dairy  work  required  travel  to  the  extent  of  27,198  miles. 

Of  the  9879  acres  of  pasture  actually  used  by  the  group  of  dairies  studied 
in  this  section,  66.6  per  cent  was  utilized  by  the  milking  herd,  or  a  total  of  6581 
acres.     The  value  of  this  pasture  amounted  to  $13,512.21,  or  $2.05  per  acre.     This 


122  UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  18. — Types  of  dairy  buildings  of  the  San  Luis  Obispo  section. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      123 


Fig.  18. —  {Continued.) 


124  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

meant  an  average  use  per  cow  per  year  of  close  to  5  acres,  thus  necessitating  a 
cost  figure  of  $10.25  per  cow  per  year  for  pasturage,  a  figure  that  includes  pastur- 
age used  by  bulls.  To  supplement  the  pasture,  these  20  dairies  fed  2264  tons  of 
hay  at  an  average  value  of  $15  per  ton;  222.97  tons  of  concentrates  at  an  average 
cost  of  $34.03  per  ton;  150  tons  of  pumpkins,  squashes,  and  carrots  at  $4.82  per 
ton;  20  tons  of  straw  at  $20  per  ton;  and  205  tons  of  green  alfalfa  at  $5  per  ton. 
Some  difficulty  was  experienced  by  the  dairymen  in  their  efforts  to  set  feed 
values.  The  task  was  easy  enough  with  concentrates  because  practically  all  are 
purchased  and  shipped  in,  but  with  hay,  green  alfalfa,  and  pasture  some  trouble 
was  experienced  in  getting  at  a  proper  figure  because  of  the  limited  sales  and 
small  demand.     Ultimately,  an  acceptable  figure  was  secured. 

Operating  capital  required  by  the  20  dairies  amounted  to  $7900,  or  an  average 
of  $395  per  dairy. 

Miscellaneous  operating  expenses  for  fuel,  power,  and  other  items  ranged  from 
$29.50  to  $513.26,  the  total  being  $2614.37. 

Cow  values  for  the  livestock  comprising  the  milking  herd  taken  from  an  average 
of  the  two  annual  inventories  ranged  from  $60  to  $90  per  head.  Seven  dairymen 
valued  their  cows  at  $75  per  head,  and  six  more  at  $67.50.  The  average  for  all 
the  cows  included  in  the  study  amounted  to  $73.12  per  head.  Bulls  were  priced 
at  from  $32.50  to  $443  each,  with  an  average  value  of  -$116.50.  Thirteen  dairies 
were  being  operated  with  bulls  valued  at  less  than  $75  each.  Of  the  total  average 
investment  in  cows  and  bulls,  about  4  per  cent  was  in  bull  values  and  96  per  cent 
in  cows. 

In  assembling  data  in  connection  with  herd  depreciation,  six  dairies  figured 
an  appreciation  in  their  cow  values  amounting  to  $2459,  which  served  to  cut  the 
total  depreciation  accruing  to  the  other  14  dairies  to  a  net  figure  of  $4069.  Net 
cow  depreciation,  therefore,  amounted  to  $1610.  One  bull  appreciated  in  value  to 
the  extent  of  $5,  but  the  other  36  fell  off  in  value  to  the  amount  of  $893,  thus 
leaving  a  net  depreciation  in  bulls  for  the  district  of  $888. 

Forty-three  cows  died,  or  a  little  over  3  per  cent  of  the  average  number  main-, 
tained  in  the  herds  under  study.  These  were  reported  as  having  a  value  of  $2770, 
or  $64.42  per  head.  This  amounted  to  about  88  per  cent  of  the  average  value 
reported  for  all  animals.  Three  bulls,  having  a  total  value  of  $185,  died.  The 
total  herd  mortality,  made  up  of  both  cows  and  bulls,  amounted  to  $2955. 

Dairy  building  equipment  for  the  20  dairies  consisted  of  a  dairy  barn  and 
milkhouse  for  each  dairy,  and  18  granaries  on  as  many  dairies.  Nine  dairies 
expended  money  for  building  upkeep,  ranging  from  $5  to  $225,  and  totaling  $478, 
or  slightly  less  than  1  per  cent  of  the  investment.  The  investment  in  building 
equipment  varied  from  $587.50  to  $5455.  Three  dairies  were  using  equipment 
valued  at  less  than  $1000;  the  dairy  buildings  on  five  dairies  ranged  from  one 
to  two  thousand  dollars;  on  six  dairies  from  two  to  three  thousand  dollars;  on 
four  dairies  from  three  to  four  thousand  dollars;  and  on  two  dairies  was  in  excess 
of  four  thousand  dollars.     The  average  for  the  20  amounted  to  about  $2500. 

Thirty-seven  and  one-half  acres  of  land  were  in  use  for  building  sites  and 
corrals,  this  acreage  possessing  a  rental  value  of  $78.  This  amounted  to  an  aver- 
age acre  rental  of  $2.07.  Investment  in  improvements  ranged  from  $72.50  to 
$1292,  amounting  to  a  total  of  $7779,  or  an  average  of  $389  per  dairy.  Twelve 
dairies  had  less  than  the  average  invested  and  eight  had  more.  The  depreciation 
of  these  improvements  amounted  to  from  $5  to  $66.25,  or  an  average  for  the  20 
dairies  of  $22.55.     This  is  equivalent  to  practically  10  per  cent  of  the  investment. 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     125 

Only  five  dairymen  found  it  necessary  to  spend  cash  for  corral  upkeep,  with  the 
total  thus  spent  amounting  to  but  $60,  or  only  %0  of  1  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

The  investment  in  dairy  equipment  ranged  from  $217.85  to  $2253.90,  with  an 
average  of  $753.  Ten  dairies  had  an  investment  of  less  than  $500,  while  five  each 
had  invested  respectively  between  $500  and  $1000,  and  five  more  than  $1000. 

The  20  dairies  were  equipped  with  7  milking  machines,  23  separators,  24  gaso- 
line engines,  22  milk  vats,  19  kettles,  3  boilers,  22  milk  strainers,  5  coolers,  99 
milk  pails,  70  pitchforks,  25  shovels,  3  scrapers,  19  wheelbarrows,  228  milk  cans, 
48  lanterns,  and  necessary  shafting,  belting,  and  sinks.  Four  veterinary  out- 
fits, a  water  wheel,  1  pair  of  clippers,  1  pump,  1  lighting  plant,  1  set  of  scales, 
and  the  usual  complement  of  brushes  and  brooms  completed  the  list.  All  but  one 
of  these  20  dairies  found  it  necessary  to  spend  something  for  dairy  equipment 
upkeep,  the  sums  ranging  from  50  cents  to  $144.75,  the  total  amounting  to  $718.70, 
or  an  average  for  the  20  dairies  of  $35.93.  Upkeep  was  4.7  per  cent  of  the  invest- 
ment in  dairy  equipment. 

No  returns  of  a  miscellaneous  nature  were  reported  for  the  dairies.  Only 
sales  of  milk  and  cream,  with  credit  for  calves,  manure,  and  skimmilk  were  credited 
to  the  dairying  operations. 

Values  per  head  for  calves  saved  for  vealing  or  rearing  ranged  from  $3  to  $8 
a  head,  with  most  of  the  dairymen  figuring  their  calves  when  dropped  as  being 
worth  $5  a  head.  The  total  value  of  1165  calves  retained  amounted  to  $5601,  or 
an  average  of  $4.81. 

Only  minor  values  were  assigned  by  dairymen  to  the  manure  produced  by  the 
dairy  herd.  Two  dairymen  reported  it  as  of  no  value  to  them,  one  dairyman 
reported  the  total  value  as  $100,  while  the  rest  figured  the  worth  at  from  $20  to 
$25.  This  gave  the  herds  a  total  credit  of  but  $450  for  all  manure  produced.  No 
sales  of  manure  were  made,  and  this  value  is  based  on  dairymen's  estimates  of 
the  value  of  the  manure  to  them. 

All  20  dairies  made  the  sale  of  cream  their  primary  object,  although  during 
the  period  under  observation  7  of  the  20  sold  some  whole  milk.  The  sale  of  whole 
milk  constituted  15  per  cent  of  the  total  sales.  Of  the  total  production,  figured  on 
a  butterfat  basis,  91.7  per  cent  was  sold,  and  the  remaining  8.3  per  cent  used  either 
in  the  home  or  in  feeding  calves.  Milk  tests  ranged  from  3.7  to  4.2  per  cent  but- 
terfat, with  a  general  average  of  3.8  per  cent,  with  cream  separated  to  test  close 
to  40  per  cent. 

Estimates  of  the  value  of  the  skimmilk  varied  from  12  to  30  cents  a  hundred 
pounds,  with  20  cents  a  hundred  pounds  considered  the  average  value  for  the 
district.  As  no  sales  were  made  of  the  skimmilk,  values  are  based  solely  on  dairy- 
men's  personal  estimates  of  its  feeding  value  for  calves  and  hogs. 

The  average  annual  production,  per  cow  amounted  to  161.3  pounds  of  butter- 
fat. The  lowest  herd  average  amounted  to  107.3  pounds;  the  highest  was  239.5 
pounds.  The  averages  for  eight  herds  was  below  150  pounds  per  cow  per  year, 
while  six  more  were  below  175  pounds.  Only  four  herds  averaged  200  pounds  or 
more,  the  figures  for  these  being  respectively  200,  203,  223,  and  239  pounds 
per  cow  per  year. 

Prices  received  by  these  dairymen  based  on  receipts  from  actual  sales  averaged 
46.6  cents  a  pound  for  butterfat  sold  as  cream,  and  48.8  cents  a  pound  for  butter- 
fat sold  in  whole  milk. 


iO 

CM 
CM 

a 

©   IC 

©    O 

co  ec 
S"5 

CO    CM    CM    t^    CO 

H    O    'f    OOh 

CO  l>   CM      '   tP 

00 
IO 

9&   iH 

00 

IO 

IO 

00 

co 
© 

9,2 

CO 

© 

co 

id 
© 

S& 

SI 

00   CO   lO   h   O   o 

CO     ^     Tt<     ©     Tf<     IO 

iO 
00 

o 

iO 

00 
CM 

9,2 

co 
co 

© 

iO 

© 
© 
9, 

CM 

CO 

00 

cm' 

00    l-l     ©     IO     i-H     i-H 

Tf               r-l 

IN    ^ 

oc 
cc 

n  m  <o  cj  r?  Tf 

N    id   CO    rH    00   N 

© 

CM 

©' 

9,2 

iO 
CM 

© 

O 

© 
CM 

00 

d 

O 

© 
9,2 

IO 

© 

CO 
CM 

© 
id 

CO    CM    ^    Tt<    i-H    CM 
iO 

S« 

oc 

c 
IC 

©    00    i-l    ©    <N    © 

io  co  ©  i>  ©  io 

O 

IO 

9&     ^H 

© 
CM 

>* 

<N 

co 
m  ^h 

© 

CO 
00 

co 

9,2 

IO 

CO 
IO 

T)l    H     00    ©    H     H 

CM    ^ 

5 

co 
9S 

©    00    ©    iO    CO    ■* 
i— I    ■*    O    IO    iO    © 

© 
00 

<N 

iO 

o 

oc 

oc 
oc 

o 

9,^ 

00 

CO 

id 

IO 

IO    CM    -*    CO           CM 

co         i-i 

O    W 
<M    i- 

lOM    t)I    iO    N    h    CO 
<S    CO    O)    tO    ffi    iO    iO 

"#'    ©    CO    ©    CO           CM 

9, 

00 

iO 

IO 

9,2 

IO 

© 
od 

© 

00 
9,03 

00 

© 

00 

IN. 

CM 
IO 

©    O 

.-H     CC 

CM    — 

IM     CO     H     H     OJ     Tf     N 

^    M    M    (O    O    IO    H 

00   N    (M*      CM           CM 
CM    CO 

9, 

9# 

00 

© 

CO 
© 

OC 
CO 
e© 

iO 
IO 

© 

© 
9, 

CO 

00 

2  <* 

«    <* 

OC 

co 
co 

91 

o  h  n  cs  c»  to 

*#    ©    rjn    CM    tJ«    © 

© 

IO 
9^ 

00 

© 

OC 
9, 

CO 

co 

•O 

OC 

CO 

© 

9, 

CM 

co 

IO 

© 

00    H     N     if               r-t 

CM 

IT 

V. 

m 

©    >0    ©    CM    ^H    iO 

co  co  ©  ©  co  © 

CO 

o 
©' 

9,° 

00 

© 

IC 

co 

00 

CM 
9,^ 

iO 

© 

© 

00    H    00    M    H    H 
CO 

2  i- 

tr. 

co 
91 

00    ©    ©    ©    ©    --H 
©    <N    CM    O    ©    <* 

cm" 

© 

© 

oc 

CO 

iO 

id 

co 
■o 

(N 

OC 
9, 

CO 

© 

© 

© 
1> 

IO    y-i    CM    CO            .-H 

2  c 

CM    "* 

0C 

oc 

tN 

co 

91 

O    iO    ©    CM    iO    CO 
rH    ©    00    i-H    to    CO 

© 

00 

© 

b» 

co 

9,^ 

© 

co 
© 

© 

00 
9, 

CM 

© 

CO 

CO 
IO 

Tf<    CO    t^    CM           CM 

2    * 

cJ 

IT. 
91 

iO    ©    ©    ©    ©    t- 

CM    tJ<    ©    ©    CO    iM 

© 

9#    -1 

CM 

iO 

CO 
9,2 

© 
© 

© 

o 

© 
© 

9, 

o 

CO 
CM 

©    i-l    ©    CO           CM 

2    « 

oc 

c 

o- 

■"#   ©  ©  io  ©  co 

H     00     ffl     Tf     H     O 

00 

co 
i> 

9,2 

CM 

IO 

1> 

9,2 

iO 

© 
1> 

CM 

IO 

© 
9, 

00 

© 

CO    CO    O    ■<*    CM    i* 
^           CM 

2    b- 
N    *" 

co  ©  cm  o  -#  ©  oo 

HNN    MOJN    N 
O    CD    N    (N    ^           CO 

N^f                i-H 

9, 

CM 

IO 
© 

91* 

© 
iO 

CC 
CT 

CT 

oc 

9, 

© 

O 
CM 

9,°° 

© 

© 

In. 

OS 

CM    * 

co 
ff 

CM 

co 
91 

(n.    ©    CO    O    t*-    CM 

©    ©    CO    ©    CO    CM 

00 

© 

d 
© 

co 
id 

0C 
9, 

© 

© 

0C 

© 
9, 

00 

© 

© 

© 

© 

IO    i-H    (N    ■<*           CM 

cm        c-q 

2  r- 

<N    W 

00    N    00    ID    O    rt    N 

>"H     O     CO     ©     ©     ©     i-l 

t^    Tji    CO    >0    ©    CM    © 

Tt<    i*            CXI 

9% 

© 

iO 

co 
e©  .-H 

© 

© 

CM 

CC 

9,   i- 

o 

CD 
00 

CO 

em  ^ 

© 
o 

CM 

IN. 

00 
IO 

§2 

CM    K 

©  ©  oo  Tt<  r>  io  t# 

CO    ©    00    00    t^    00    00 

©    ©    CM    00    CO           i-l 

>*    CO 

9% 

co 

iO 
9,2 

CM 
CM 

CT 

co 

CO 

© 

OC 

as05 

CM 

© 
CO 

00 

© 

8« 

C<1    N    IO    ■*    Cft   N    N 
©    lO   O    CO    CO    ■<#    © 

©  ©  T-i  ©  co         t-i 

co  co 

9, 

© 

00 

co 

CC 

CM 

9,°° 

CM 

© 

c 

CO 
9, 

© 

© 

co 

co 

00 
IO 

CM    lt: 

CC 
CC 

« 

3 

O    N    N    00    rt    N 

t^     ©     ^     TfH     IO     CM 

iO 

© 

9%    — i 

i>         co 

©        © 

©         © 

9,2 

« 

CO 

00 
CO 

00 

©  ■ 

■*    CM    ©    iO           CM 
iO 

95 

©    iO    ©    ©    O    00 
iO   CM    CO    iO    CO    o 

© 

CM 

CO 

9%     H 

© 
<N 

iO 

C 

o- 

CC 

CM 

9,    i- 

CM 

© 

00 

oc 

CT 
l> 

9,   ^ 

© 

© 

00 

co 
© 

(M     l-H     Tt<    ■*              i-H 
1^ 

Ave.  of 
Dist. 
1329 

■*     ©     Tt<     IO     CO     ©     i-H 

©  ©  co  co  ©  t^  ■* 


©    CM    IN    ©    CO           CM 

1      S^ 

© 
© 

00 

9,°> 

•O 
<* 

9,C 

© 

© 

CM 

Tf 

CC 
OC 
9, 

CO 

© 

© 
co 

iO 

c 

> 

'5 

c 

1 

c 
« 

c 
V 

co 

a  t 

o  i- 
O 

1 

a 
ft 

to    ai    ^    W  -G 

<-,  n  pq  O  w 

1 

o 
co 

CO 

O 

fei 

o 

H 

-3  "^ 
1    - 

lo    g 

o  a 

O 

"o 

"S 

8- 

>   S 

03  a 

c3/2 

<*H         CO 

-3  3 

6 

"o  "o 
25    a 

St 

CO 

o  rt 

O   ,0 

co 

a 

«*h      CD 

o    o 

a  ■§ 

a>    a> 
0.  *^ 

S  •<> 
O 

Bulletin  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      127 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

The  variation  in  the  various  items  determining  costs,  such  as  oper- 
ating costs,  overhead  items,  and  amount  of  production  per  cow  for 
the  dairies  studied  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County  is  set  forth  in  table  22. 
The  average  for  the  district  is  also  shown  for  each  item. 

The  average  cost  of  producing  butterfat  was  53.6  cents  for  the 
twenty  dairies  under  observation.  The  range  was  from  a  low  of  41.6 
cents  to  a  high  of  76.9  cents,  10  dairies  producing  at  or  below  the 
average  district  cost. 

11.    MONTEREY-SAN     BENITO-SANTA    CRUZ     DISTRICT 

Brief  Description  of  Area 

Complete  records  covering  a  year's  business  on  33  dairies  located 
in  the  principal  dairying  sections  of  Monterey,  San  Benito,  and  Santa 
Cruz  counties  were  obtained.  In  the  final  summary,  however,  14 
dairies  were  eliminated,  these  being  situated  on  rolling  hills  close  to 
the  coast  or  in  the  redwoods  and  hardly  comparable  with  the  others. 
Dairies  reported  for  this  district,  therefore,  are  those  operating  under 
conditions  of  irrigated  alfalfa  and  other  field  crops.  Of  the  19  dairies 
finally  summarized  and  analyzed,  9  were  in  San  Benito  County,  8  in 
Monterey  County,  and  2  in  Santa  Cruz  County,  county  lines,  however, 
making  little  difference  since  these  dairies  were  being  conducted  under 
similar  conditions  and  hence  comparable,  irrespective  of  geographical 
boundaries.  Of  the  19  dairies,  9  were  in  the  vicinity  of  Hollister,  4 
contributory  to  Watsonville,  and  6  close  to  Greenfield. 

Record  taking  was  begun  January  1,  1922,  on  3  of  the  19  dairies, 
February  1,  1922,  on  6,  and  March  1,  1922,  on  10. 

These  19  dairies  utilized  a  total  of  1944  acres,  ranging  in  size  from 
25  to  400  acres,  Ten  of  these  dairies  possessed  only  alfalfa  land,  the 
total  area  utilized  by  these  10  amounting  to  613  acres,  thus  averaging 
61.3  acres,  though  ranging  from  30  to  100  acres.  The  dairies  using 
the  larger  areas,  100  acres  or  over,  usually  possessed  some  swamp 
land  used  for  pasture,  or  rolling  hills  producing  grain  or  pasturage  in 
addition  to  their  cropped  fields.  All  the  dairies  possessed  some  alfalfa 
land. 

Some  variation  in  feeding  methods  occurred  on  these  dairies.  In 
general,  the  use  of  pasture,  either  natural  or  alfalfa  or  grain  stubble, 
was  available,  and  used  by  four  dairymen  throughout  the  year.  Two 
dairymen  reported  the  use  of  pasture  for  11  months,  while  6  used 
pasturage  intermittently  for  from  2  to  8  months.  Three  dairymen 
reported  no  pasturage,  1  almost  none,  and  2  did  not  give  usable 


128  UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

details.  When  pasturage  was  reported  for  less  than  8  months,  it 
was  usually  available  during  the  spring  and  summer  months.  Feed- 
ing of  hay,  either  alone  or  as  a  supplement  to  the  pasturage,  was 
universally  reported.  Year-round  feeding  of  hay  was  practiced  by 
17  of  these  19  dairymen,  with  greatest  use  of  alfalfa  hay,  although 
some  small  quantities  of  barley,  oat,  and  wild  grass  hays  were  occa- 
sionally fed.  Dairymen  who  did  not  feed  continuously  used  other 
feeds  such  as  silage  and  concentrates  to  supplement  the  pastures. 
Feeding  of  concentrates  was  done  only  to  a  very  limited  extent.  Only 
1  dairyman  fed  consistently  throughout  the  year.  Eleven  men  fed 
none  whatever.  The  remaining  7  fed  spasmodically  for  from  1  to  4 
months,  the  longer  feeding  being  practiced  during  the  winter  months 
to  supplement  other  available  feeds.  Occasionally,  for  a  month  or 
two,  a  little  use  was  made  of  sugar  beet  tops,  green  alfalfa,  green 
barley,  green  grass,  potatoes,  sugar  beet  roots,  and  carrots.  Five 
dairymen  used  silage  made  of  corn,  or  corn  and  sunflowers,  while 
one  man  put  up  a  little  green  barley  silage.  Silage  feeding  was 
resorted  to  during  the  late  fall,  winter,  and  early  spring  months,  for 
periods  lasting  from  3  to  8  months. 

During  the  year  that  these  19  dairies  were  under  observation,  an 
average  of  732  cows  and  21  bulls  were  maintained  in  the  milking 
herds.  The  size  of  the  individual  herds  varied  from  16  to  71  cows, 
averaging  38.  Seven  dairies  averaged  less  than  30  cows  in  the  herd 
during  the  year,  10  had  from  30  to  60  cows,  and  2  had  over  60  cows 
in  the  herd. 

The  Holstein  cow  was  outstandingly  well  represented,  18  of  the 
19  herds  consisting  practically  entirely  of  this  one  breed,  while  the 
remaining  herd  was  made  up  of  both  Holsteins  and  Jerseys. 

Nine  of  these  dairies  were  headed  by  purebred  registered  bulls, 
10  in  number,  all  of  the  Holstein  breed. 

Year  round  freshening  of  cows  was  the  rule,  to  insure  a  continuous 
supply  of  milking  cows. 

Milking  on  every  dairy  was  done  at  approximately  12-hour  inter- 
vals, although  a  few  dairymen  began  their  afternoon  milking  an  hour 
earlier  than  in  the  morning.  One  dairyman  milked  at  1  o'clock,  10 
at  4  and  4 :30,  6  at  5,  and  2  at  6  o'clock.  With  but  a  single  exception 
where  a  milking  machine  was  consistently  in  use,  all  cows  were  milked 
by  hand. 

Nationalities  of  both  operators  and  milkers  were  stated  as  Ameri- 
can, Italian-Swiss,  Swiss,  Danish,  Italian,  Portuguese,  and  French. 

Of  the  19  dairies  studied  in  this  section,  16  specialized  in  the 
production  and  sale  of  whole  milk,  with  the  remaining  3  selling  both 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     129 

whole  milk  and  butterfat.  The  latter  3  retailed  their  product;  the 
others  sold  wholesale  to  F.  M.  Frazell  Cheese  Factory,  Gilroy;  Hol- 
lister  Creamery;  Watsonville  Creamery;  United  Milk  Company  of 
San  Francisco;  Nestle 's  Food  Company,  Gonzales;  and  to  the  Salinas 
Valley  Dairymen's  Association. 

The  personnel  of  the  operators  on  these  19  dairies  consisted  of 
15  owners  and  4  tenants. 

Summary  of  Costs 

In  table  23  are  set  forth  the  condensed  findings  concerning  the 
cost  factors — kinds,  amounts,  and  totals — entering  into  the  produc- 
tion of  whole  milk  and  butterfat  in  this  district. 

TABLE  23 

Cost  of  Milk  Production  Summary — Monterey,  San  Benito,  Santa  Cruz 

Counties 

Number  of  dairies 19 

Number  of  cows 732 

Number  of  bulls 21 

Costs 

Operating 
Labor 

Man— manual,  101,674  hours $30,352.88 

Man — management 6,120.00 

Horse,  9,259  hours 979.99 

Truck  and  automobile,  17,942  miles 1,046.27 

Insurance 202.10 

Total  labor  cost $38,701.24 

Feed 

Pasture $11,182.10 

Hay,  3395  tons 51,156.00 

Concentrates,  47.46  tons 1,315.69 

Silage,  426^  tons 2,550.84 

Green  feed,  8453^  tons 3,491.87 

Roots,  55.2  tons 374.00 

Total  feed  costs 70,070.50 

Hauling  milk 2,465.56 

Supplies,  cow  testing,  etc 1,887.46 

Interest  on  operating  capital,  $7,990.00  @  6% 479.40 

Herd  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  in  cattle, 

$75,314.48  @  6% $4,518.86 

Depreciation 387.07 

Mortality:  21  cows,  $1,870;  1  bull,  $250 2,120.00 

Taxes : 1,068.35 

Total  herd  charge 8,094.28 


130  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

Building  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $43,434.50  @  6%      $2,606.07 

Depreciation 1,672.00 

Upkeep 761.17 

Taxes 292.25 

Insurance 227.90 

Total  buildings  charge 5,559.39 

Corral  charge 

Use  of  land,  including  taxes,  72  acres $1,231.00 

Interest  on  investment  in  improvements,  $6,780.50 

©6% 406.83 

Depreciation  of  improvements 787.00 

Upkeep 189.00 

Total  corral  charge 2,613.83 

Equipment  charge 

Interest  on  average  investment  of  $6,587.04  @  6%         $395.14 

Depreciation 1,160.13 

Upkeep 521.18 

Taxes 19.16 

Total  equipment  charge 2,095.61 

Total  gross  cost $131,967.27 

Credits 

Calves,  627 $3,866.85 

Manure 1,184.50 

Total  credits $5,051.35 

Net  cost  of  whole  milk $126,915.92 

Total  production  of  whole  milk 5,002,049  pounds 

Cost  per  hundredweight  of  whole  milk $2,54 

Total  production  of  butterf at  in  whole  milk 181,400.41  pounds 

Cost  per  pound  of  butterfat  in  whole  milk : 70  cents 

.                        ,         ,     ,.  f  6829  pounds  of  whole  milk 

Average  annual  production  per  eow j  ^  ^^  of  butterfat 

Comments  on  Cost  Findings 

The  19  herds  concerned  in  the  cost  of  milk  production  studies  conducted  in 
Monterey,  San  Benito,  and  Santa  Cruz  counties  were  assessed  for  $32,200.  The 
buildings  used  in  connection  with  these  dairies  were  assessed  for  $8887.50.  Dairy 
equipment  was  assessed  for  $620.  Tax  rates  per  $100  of  assessed  value  varied 
from  $2.70  to  $4.93.  Total  taxes  paid  amounted  to  $1068.35  on  cattle,  $292.25 
on  dairy  buildings,  and  $19.16  on  dairy  equipment. 

Buildings  and  employer's  liability  were  the  only  kinds  of  insurance  carried  in 
connection  with  the  dairies.  Fifteen  of  the  19  dairymen  carried  building  insur- 
ance, and  7  carried  employer's  liability  insurance. 

Manual  labor  used  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  these  dairies  cost  an  average 
of  30  cents  an  hour.  Eighteen  of  the  19  dairymen  estimated  that  their  time  spent 
wholly  in  management  was  worth  a  total  of  $6120,  or  20  per  cent  of  the  amount 
expended  for  manual  labor. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      131 

Eleven  of  these  dairymen  used  horse  labor  in  connection  with  the  work  of  the 
dairies.  The  cost  an  hour,  based  on  all  work  done  by  the  work  horses  averaged 
10.6  cents,  although  ranging  from  5.7  to  27.6  cents. 

Two  trucks,  two  automobiles,  and  one  tractor  were  used  in  carrying  on  the 
work  of  the  dairy  by  as  many  dairymen.  The  cost  a  mile  ranged  from  3  to  10 
cents,  averaging  close  to  5  cents  a  mile. 

The  value  of  the  pasturage  used  by  16  dairymen  amounted  to  $17.12  a  cow 
a  year  for  the  number  of  cows  carried  by  the  dairies  having  pasture.  The  costs 
per  ton  for  other  feeds  used  during  the  year  that  these  dairies  were  under  obser- 
vation averaged  for  the  year:  Hay,  $15.07;  concentrates,  $29.83;  green  feed, 
$4.13;  silage,  $6.00;  and  roots,  $6.76. 

Twelve  of  these  dairymen  had  their  product  hauled  under  contract,  paying 
$2465.56  for  this  service.  In  addition,  purchase  of  supplies,  payments  for  cow 
testing,  and  similar  items  totaled  $1887.46,  all  dairymen  reporting  minor  expendi- 
tures of  this  sort  during  the  year.  Operating  capital  amounted  to  $7990  or  $420 
per  dairy. 

The  average  investment  in  milking  herds  for  the  year  amounted  to  $75,314.48, 
of  which  bull  values  made  up  $2,963.73,  or  close  to  4  per  cent,  while  the  cows 
made  up  the  balance.  Cow  values  per  head  based  on  the  different  herd  averages 
ranged  from  $60  to  $150.  All  cows  covered  by  the  study  averaged  $94.48.  Bull 
values  ranged  from  $47.50  to  $350,  and  averaged  $141.  Of  the  21  bulls  in  the 
district,  14  were  valued  at  $150  or  less. 

Cow  values  reflected  an  appreciation  in  11  of  these  19  dairies  but  the  depre- 
ciation occurring  in  the  remaining  8  herds  was  sufficient  to  more  than  offset  these 
gains,  so  that  a  net  depreciation  for  all  herds  took  place,  amounting  to  $67.07. 
Bull  appreciation  occurred  on  5  dairies  and  bull  depreciation  on  the  remaining  14, 
the  final  figure  showing  a  net  depreciation  of  $320.  Total  herd  depreciation 
amounted  to  $387.07. 

Mortality  of  the  milking  herds,  during  the  year  covered  by  this  study,  amounted 
to  21  cows  valued  at  $1870,  and  one  bull  valued  at  $250,  or  total  losses  of  $2120. 
The  average  value  of  cows  dying  amounted  to  close  to  $80  a  head,  or  nearly  85 
per  cent  of  the  average  of  all  cows  in  the  herds. 

Building  equipment  of  these  dairies  consisted  of  18  milking  barns,  1  dairy 
having  no  barn,  13  milk  houses,  11  feed,  calf,  and  shelter  sheds,  and  8  silos.  The 
investment  in  these  structures  varied  from  nothing  to  $4947,  averaged  $2391,  and 
totaled  $43,434.50.  Eight  dairies  possessed  an  investment  of  from  $2000  to  $3000, 
six  of  from  $1000  to  $2000,  four  of  more  than  $3000,  and  only  the  one  having  no 
equipment  classified  as  having  less  than  $1000  invested.  Nine  dairymen  made 
expenditures  for  building  upkeep,  ranging  from  $5  to  $410,  and  totaling  $761.17. 
This  amounted  to  an  annual  upkeep  expense  equivalent  to  1.7  per  cent  of  the 
investment  in  such  equipment.  Depreciation  totaled  $1672,  or  practically  4  per 
cent  of  the  investment. 

Land  used  for  corrals  and  dairy  structures  amounted  to  72  acres,  the  indi- 
vidual dairies  utilizing  from  one  to  ten  acres  each.  Use  of  this  land  was  figured 
at  $1231,  or  at  the  annual  rate  of  $17.10  per  acre.  Investment  in  corral  fences, 
watering  facilities,  and  similar  improvements  ranged  from  $131.50  to  $655.50, 
totaled  $6780.50,  and  averaged  $356.68  a  dairy.  Five  dairymen  spent  various 
sums  for  upkeep  of  these  improvements,  varying  from  $10  to  $103,  and  totaling 
$189.    Upkeep  expenditures  are  therefore  equal  to  2.8  per  cent  of  the  investment 


132 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Pig.  19. — Typical  dairy  building  equipment  and  Layouts  of  the  Monterey,  San 
Benito  and  Santa  Cruz  districts. 


Bulletin  :'.^|     cost  of  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     133 


Fig.  10. —  (Continued.) 


134  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

in  such  improvements.  Depreciation  during  the  year  amounted  to  $787,  or  11.6 
per  cent  of  the  amount  of  the  investment. 

•  Dairying  equipment  shown  by  the  inventories  of  the  various  items  required 
to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  dairies  consisted  of  4  milking  machines,  5  separators, 
266  milk  cans,  70  pails,  20  coolers,  4  sterilizing  tanks,  8  washing  vats,  12  wheel- 
barrows, 5  veterinary  outfits,  7  lanterns,  19  shovels,  31  forks,  20  brushes,  20 
brooms,  4  boilers,  1  manure  cart,  3  manure  scrapers,  1  feed  mixing  box,  1  corral 
scraper,  2  wagons,  1  sled,  4  strainers,  4  milk  receiving  vats,  1  clarifier,  3  coal  oil 
burners  and  pressure  tanks,  and  a  miscellaneous  assortmeut  of  hose.  Investment 
in  this  equipment  totaled  $6587.04,  averaged  $346.79  per  dairy,  and  ranged  from 
$22.90  on  the  dairy  having  the  least  equipment  to  $1250.75  on  the  dairy  having 
fhe  most.  During  the  year,  all  dairymen  found  it  necessary  to  make  expenditures 
for  equipment  upkeep,  ranging  from  $4.40  to  $75.30,  and  totaling  $521.18.  This 
amounted  to  about  8  per  cent  of  the  investment.  Depreciation  amounted  to 
$1160.13,  or  17.6  per  cent  of  the  investment. 

Miscellaneous  returns  were  unimportant.  Sales  of  feed  sacks  to  the  amount 
of  $1  and  $5.35  worth  of  hides  were  the  only  items  of  this  nature  reported. 

Credit  for  calves  produced  by  the  milking  herd  amounted  to  $3861.50,  this 
sum  being  set  as  constituting  the  value  of  627  calves  saved  for  either  vealing  or 
rearing.  The  average  value  thus  amounted  to  $6.15  per  head.  The  lowest  price 
reported  was  $2.50  a  head,  the  highest  $8.00. 

No  sales  of  manure  produced  by  these  dairies  were  recorded,  but  ranch  use 
gave  to  the  herds  a  credit  for  manure  to  the  amount  of  $1184.50.  This  sum  was 
the  total  reported  by  12  dairymen,  the  others  deeming  the  manure  of  no  value  to 
them.  The  total  number  of  cows  on  the  dairies  of  men  assigning  some  value  to 
the  output  of  manure  amounted  to  485  head. 

Of  the  19  dairymen  in  this  district,  3  sold  both  whole  milk  and  butterfat  as 
cream,  while  the  others  confined  their  sales  to  whole  milk  only.  Total  production, 
in  terms  of  whole  milk  amounted  to  5,002,049  pounds;  in  terms  of  butterfat,  to 
181,400.41  pounds.  Of  this  production,  6.6  per  cent  was  used  at  the  dairy,  and 
93.4  per  cent  sold.  Tests  of  the  different  dairies  averaged  from  3.4  to  4  per  cent 
butterfat  in  milk,  or  a  general  average  for  the  district  during  the  year  that  these 
studies  were  under  way  of  3.6  per  cent. 

The  average  annual  production  for  the  732  cows  studied  amounted  to  6829 
pounds  of  whole  milk,  or  248  pounds  of  butterfat  per  cow.  The  lowest  herd 
average  of  the  19  dairies  was  4438  pounds  of  whole  milk  per  cow  per  year,  con- 
taining 159  pounds  of  butterfat.  The  highest  herd  average  amounted  to  9641 
pounds  of  whole  milk  containing  347  pounds  of  butterfat  per  cow.  Of  the  19 
dairies,  9  were  below  the  average  whole  milk  yield  per  cow,  while  4  were  barely 
above  the  average.  Nine  were  15  pounds  or  more  below  the  average  butterfat 
yield  of  the  total  19  dairies,  while  5  averages  of  individual  herds  hovered  close  to 
the  average  butterfat  yield  for  the  district. 

Since  only  2  of  these  19  dairymen  sold  cream,  the  data  of  prices  received  for 
this  product  are  too  scanty  for  averaging.  Prices  received  for  wholesale  selling 
of  whole  milk  averaged  $1.98  per  100  pounds,  which  was  equivalent  to  55  cents 
per  pound  for  the  butterfat  contained  therein. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      135 

Costs  of  Production  by  Individual  Dairies 

In  table  24  are  set  forth  the  various  items  entering  into  the  cost 
of  producing  milk  on  each  of  the  19  dairies  studied  in  Monterey,  San 
Benito,  and  Santa  Cruz  counties.  These  are  figured  on  an  average 
per  cow  basis,  for  both  cost  items  and  production. 

Dairies  numbered  112  to  118  inclusive  are  in  the  Salinas  Valley 
of  Monterey  County,  dairies  numbered  248  to  250  are  likewise  in 
Monterey  County  but  classify  more  fittingly  perhaps  with  the  two 
dairies  in  Santa  Cruz  County,  numbers  249  and  251,  since  these  four 
are  located  in  close  proximity  to  each  other.  The  dairies  numbered 
166  to  174  inclusive  are  in  San  Benito  County. 

The  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  on  each  of  these  dairies,  as  shown 
by  the  findings,  ranges  from  a  low  of  $1.56  to  a  high  of  $3.76  per 
100  pounds,  while  butterfat  costs  varied  from  43  cents  to  $1.04 
per  pound.  Nine  of  the  dairies  produced  their  output  at  a  figure  at 
or  less  than  the  average  cost  for  the  19. 


*# 

a 

Si 

T* 

,_, 

N 

_, 

o> 

n 

CM 

CO 

i 

"5  r? 

CM    N 

TH    O    t>    1>     rH     00    I> 

<M 

t^ 

IO 

CM 

o 

CO 

o 

lO    CO    -#'    iH    Tjl    ai    ai 

00 

d 

r-| 

CO 

00 

«5     ffl                        rH 

l> 

I> 

LO 

€© 

00 

«© 

^     r-l 

m     rH 

M   O   N«    h    iO    CO 

r-l 

n 

■* 

i 

■*    ffi    S    O    00    tJ(    N 

CD 

<M 

co 

CM 

CO 

N 

o 

** 

CO 

■*'  d  n  id  <b  n  h 
■*  o 

CO 
CO 

id 

00 
IO 

§ 

CM 

CN 

CO 

«©                     rH 

e»  -h 

m     -H 

¥$ 

1         n  h  iflriH  to  m 

rH 

CD 

LO 

1 

3    « 

CD    00    i-i    ffl    00    00    ID 

N 

00 

00 

CD 

o 

CO 

"* 

o 

co  O)  to  ■*  a  m  ^ 

•* 

GO 

d 

CN 

LO 

io  a> 

00 

t> 

LO 

CO 

00 

1    es 

1      S©    rH 

m     rH 

e© 

1             CD   SO   •*   N    00    00    H 

1         o 

rH 

ffl 

| 

a$  « 

to  oj  in  ffi  o  a  w 

IO 

N 

t> 

00 

CD 

ffl 

o 

co 

N 

LO 

"#'  ffl  ai  -^  ©  cm'  ih 

to 

ffl 

d 

Tt< 

Tf< 

*  a  h        .-i 

^ 

CD 

«* 

ed 

o 

€© 

1       m     r-l 

m    rH 

«© 

1 

N    O    h    (O    iO    *    h 

•* 

oo 

co 

II 

Sa 

id   «    H   CO   (N    00    m 

CO 

00 

t^ 

00 

ffl 

N 

o 

IO 

tH 

CO    M    N    00   CO    ^'    CO 

CM 

CO 

00 

00 

CN 

00 

lO    CO                        i-H 

CN 

CO 

CO* 

00 

e©        ih 

m  <m 

m  cm 

m 

h  cs  t)i  cn  h  o  a 

CO 

o 

CO 

| 

S^ 

H     i-     lO     CH     C!T)1 

lO 

00 

N 

<M 

00 

CD 

o 

CO 

CN 

.    to  id  o  d  «  cd  h 

co 

d 

d 

LO 

CO 

N 

■*   O   iH   tN 

ffl 

00 

00 

CM 

LO 

e©       rH 

m     r-l 

m     rH 

TH     — <     LO    ffl    00    ■*     ffl 

rH 

Tfl 

N 

CO 

| 

£s 

CD   00    00    lO    to   N    CO 

>* 

o 

T* 

TtH 

N 

o 

N 

cd  od  n  d  d  id  (N 

ffl 

id 

co 

o 

CN 

co 

d 

GO    CM            rH    rH 

co 

(M 

ffl 

m 

l> 

6©       rH       * 

m  c^ 

m  cm 

^    iO    00    H    O    00    lO 

1                rH 

rH 

o 

co 

1 

c«- 

NOON    tOO    "OO 

l> 

■* 

■>* 

iO 

CO 

o 

rH     IO 

ffl 

IO 

I>    CO 

NNN    ffl    i-lci    ri 

ffl 

■*' 

•*' 

00 

cm" 

CN 

ffl 

^lOffl 

*^ 

m     rH 

to 

«© 

1 

co 

t^    00    rH    t-    l>-    00    b- 

LO 

N- 

00 

o 

1 

ffl    lO    00    CO    ffl    CO    N 

CO 

CM 

o 

CO 

N 

o 

s  ^ 

•rV 

TjH 

CO    ■*'    b-    CO    ffl    CO    CN 

00 

I> 

co 

CN 

CO 

ai 

O     rH                rH 

LO 

LO 

ffl 

m 

t^ 

«©  th  r-i 

m  cm 

«#   CM 

rH    CO    t*-    iO    00    rH    LO 

ffl 

CM 

1^. 

i— i 

II         co 

§£ 

H     H     ffl     CO     CO'*     H 

LO 

l> 

00 

o 

ffl 

o 

N 

ii    g^ 

CO    th'    IO    ffl    »-    CO    CO 

CO 

ffl 

d 

N 

CN 

00 

tOO                H 

a 

ffl 

CO 

ee 

ii 

00 

m        <-* 

$&   CM 

m     r-l 

ffl    rf<     ffl    tH    t^     CO    CO 

LO 

rH 

•<& 

LO 

i 

§3 

iO    N    to    Tt<    *    CN    O 

CM 

LO 

!> 

00 

co 

tH 

o 

CD 

1           "t 

h  co  id  s  to  io  d 

d 

d 

co 

ffl 

CN 

CM 

N 

**     00             rH                      r-l 

«© 

6©     rH 

CO 
m     rH 

CO 

«© 

1 

CO 

o  t-  m  ffl  -#  b-  t-< 

"# 

ffl 

LO 

N 

§s 

iO    00    CO    i-h    CM    O    LQ 

LO 

00 

CO 

00 

LO 

Tj< 

o 

ffl 

ffl 

O*    I>     rH     CO     ffl     U5 

Tt< 

■* 

ffl 

CO 

CD 

iO    IO           CM 

«©                 * 

CM 

CO 

00 

e© 

iO 

€© 

■* 

CO    iO    CO    -^    CM    CO    o 

CO 

00 

00 

00 

is 

O     ffl    i-H    t>     iO    ■*     ffl 

t^ 

-# 

<M 

ffl 

CO 

c 

N 

CO    ffl    TjH    Tji    i>    id 

00 

d 

s 

CO 

CM 

ffl 

1>    00           CO 

CO 

6© 

ffl 

€© 

e©  cm 

«©   CM 

CO    CO    00    ffl    CO    O    00 

o 

oo 

CM 

CO 

I 

2  w 

i<  O  h  h  co  h  cq 

CO 

CD 

ffl 

N 

iO 

co 

o 

N 

co 

S    "5 

ffl     CO    IO    N     N     ri    H 

N 

CO 

d 

■* 

CM 

co 

CM    iO           rH 

e© 

•  s 

^2 

co 

«© 

II 

*& 

O    CM    Tt<    ffl    00    CM    00 

co 

t}< 

o> 

o 

II             tH 

2    <» 

CM    —i    O    LO    00    -tf    tM 

LO 

I> 

^ 

cs 

co 

OC 

o 

rH     "* 

r>-  cd  t>i  •<#  id  cm  lo 

LO 

rt< 

d 

T* 

CN 

CN 

s 

iO    00           i-f 

N 

t^ 

N 

m 

CD 

1   «© 

m     rH 

«©     rH 

ON    O    h    CO    ON 

t> 

r- 

o 

LO 

'°    I-H 

N    i<    Tf    HN    OO 

LO 

CN 

co 

co 

T* 

co 

O 

M    *- 

O   N    tO    O    IO    N    CO 

iO 

l> 

GO 

**l 

ai 

ai 

GO 

ION           CM 

co 

LO 

CO 

m 

CO 

m 

m     -I 

m     rH 

1 

LO    CM    O    ffl    00    N    CO 

t- 

CO 

rH 

CD 

1 

2  o 

00   CO    00    N    to    to    ^ 

o 

T« 

CO 

LO 

CO 

CO 

o 

O 

JZJ    CO 

ffl    CM    00    id    00    rH    CO 

co 

LC 

CN 

co 

CD 

-*  co 

«©               r-l 

■'  m  oc 

^ 

O 
6%    CM 

oc 

m 

1 

CD 

Tf  co  b-  i— i  t^  co  co 

LO 

CO 

CN 

1 

2  2 

N    CN    IM    fflN    h    K 

5 

O 

CO 

CM 

00 

o 

O 

CO 

CM    CM    ©    l>    00    rH    CO 

CT 

L0 

** 

CC 

CN 

CO 

ffl 

oo  cq  h  h 

-* 

Tt< 

OC 

m 

N 

m        ^h 

e@  <m 

m  cm 

LO  00  ■>*•  o 

ffl    CM 

oc 

co 

CM 

"* 

1 

2  »- 

N    CO    lOffl 

O    CM 

oc 

(N 

CD 

iO 

CC 

CC 

■OH 

O 

rH    ^ 

HOW'* 

CO    i-J 

CC 

LO 

oc 

aq 

ai 

Tfi 

LO    O           CN 

oc 

^   °° 

cc 

99 

N 

«©          rH 

m    rH 

«©     rH 

•M 

CO    CO    O    iO    ffl    N    CC 

CC 

a- 

N 

S 

0.     tS     « 

00    CO    CO   O    LO    lO   oc 

I— 

oc 

CM 

ffl 

a 

oc 
ai 

O 

a)  .2  co 

N    id    td    H    N    CO    CN 

c 

CC 

co 

CN 

d 

iO    ffl            t-t 

oc 

^ 

CC 

m 

r- 

< 

«© 

©©     r- 

m   r* 

c 

> 

i- 

'? 

(= 

1 

.  - 

c 

7 

i 

u 

1 

i 

u. 

E 

a 

s- 

Is 

a 
6 

9 

- 

i 

a 
b 

a 

■f 

J 

'I 

9 

i 

E 

c 

§ 

cc 

e 
a 
E 

.£ 

E 

1 

a 

c 

a 

■        C 

1 

E- 

6 

,1- 

o 

"1 

"o 

1 

o 

"o 

rC 

<«  t: 
o   e 

.2   c 

Si 

V 

0-i 

-a 
'S 

>"      rH      'C 
-        CP      rC 

a  ^ 

S  1 
o 

S 

1 

"o 

c 

i  i 

? l 

1    Ph 

i      CO 

3    ° 

-°  M 

4'1 

c  „2 

O     r; 

1. 1  s 
o 

BULLETIN   372]       C0ST  OF  PRODUCING  MARKET   MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT       137 


PART   III.     UNIT  FACTORS  IN  PRODUCING  WHOLE   MILK 

AND  BUTTERFAT 

From  the  various  data  presented  in  Part  II,  it  is  possible  to  work 
out  certain  of  the  unit  factors  involved  in  the  production  of  whole 
milk  or  butterfat.  By  "unit  factors"  are  meant  the  basic  items 
making  up  the  completed  cost,  and  measured  in  terms  of  time  and 
quantity  whenever  possible,  rather  than  in  dollars  and  cents.  Such 
calculations  provide  a  formula  which  will  apply  in  future  years  so 
long  as  dairying  practice  remains  the  same.  The  principal  purpose 
of  this  section,  therefore,  is  to  provide  a  working  basis  for  future 
years,  determined  from  the  results  of  the  investigations  conducted 
in  1922,  so  that  with  the  findings  thus  secured  it  will  be  possible  to 
substitute  new  rates  and  thus  determine  costs  for  any  future  year. 
Such  calculations  and  presentations  tend  to  place  in  reasonably  per- 
manent form  the  work  of  a  single  year. 

The  unit  factors  set  forth  the  amount  of  labor,  feed,  hauling,  sup- 
plies, interest  on  operating  capital,  and  charges  for  herd,  buildings, 
corrals,  and  equipment  reported  in  quantity,  dollars,  and  percentages 
for  a  stated  amount  of  product. 

When  dealing  with  unit  factors  entering  into  production  costs, 
it  is  possible  to  consider  hours  and  pounds  as  units  of  the  labor  and 
feed  factors.  But  apparently  the  only  satisfactory  unit  of  measure- 
ment is  the  dollar  when  considering  the  factors  of  supplies,  interest 
on  operating  capital,  and  herd,  building  and  equipment  charges.  In 
figuring  credits,  the  dollar,  with  the  exception  of  the  skimmilk  credit, 
must  likewise  be  made  the  unit. 

In  the  following  discussion  of  unit  factors  of  production  costs, 
"R"  represents  the  going  rate  in  dollars  for  the  particular  item 
during  any  year.  ' '  x ' '  represents  the  purchasing  power  of  the  dollar 
as  compared  with  1922,  the  year  of  this  survey.  For  example,  "R" 
might  represent  a  rate  of  30  cents  an  hour  for  labor  or  $20  a  ton  for 
hay.  The  purchasing  power  of  the  dollar  may  increase  to  twice  its 
1922  value,  in  which  case  "x"  would  equal  2;  or  it  might  decrease 
to  one-half  its  value  during  1922,  in  which  case  llx"  would  equal 
one-half. 

In  the  following  section  showing  the  method  of  determining  the 
cost  of  producing  1000  pounds  of  whole  milk  and  100  pounds  of 

butterfat,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  designation  is  1  over  x,  e.g.,  — j 


138  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

instead  of  "x."  The  inverse  ratio  is  used  because  this  factor  in- 
fluences the  known  unit  factors  inversely.  For  example,  if  the  dollar 
of  tomorrow  will  buy  twice  the  amount  of  supplies  that  it  will  today, 
its  purchasing  power  is  twice  that  of  today,  and  the  capital  needed 
for  the  same  amount  of  supplies  is  reduced  to  one-half.  Therefore, 
the  inverse  ratio  is  always  to  be  used. 

The  purchasing'  power  of  the  dollar  for  any  given  year  as  com- 
pared with  1922,  or  "sc"  may  be  determined  from  current  statistical 
business  data  published  by  bankers,  business  rating  agencies,  or 
similar  sources. 

In  using  this  formula,  based  on  factors  entering  into  production 
costs,  the  application  of  the  going  rates  during  any  year  to  the  units 
herein  set  out  will  determine  the  production  costs  during  that  year 
so  long  as  practices  remain  the  same  as  in  1922. 

Insurance  on  feed  and  workmen's  compensation  or  accident  insur- 
ance are  not  shown  as  unit  factors.  In  supplying  these  data  these 
items  should  be  shown  as  part  of  the  rate,  i.e.,  if  the  rate  for  hay  is 
$15  a  ton  and  insurance  amounts  to  5  cents  a  ton,  the  rate  to  be  used 
is  $15.05.  Accident  insurance  should  be  added  to  the  manual  labor 
charge,  the  amount  being  determined  by  the  current  rate  per  $100 
of  wages  paid. 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  1000  POUNDS  OF  WHOLE  MILK  AND  100  POUNDS 

OF  BUTTERFAT 

"  E "  represents  the  going  rate  for  the  particular  item  set  opposite  during 
any  year. 

"x"  represents  the  purchasing  power  of  the  dollar  during  that  year  as  com- 
pared with  1922.  If  the  rate  is  the  same,  it  is  expressed  by  the  figure  { '  1 ' '  j  if 
it  is  one-half  the  1922  value,  the  figure  is  "  % ' ' ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  new 
rate  is  twice  the  1922  value,  the  "  2 ' '  is  used,  etc. 

**  represents  the  unit  factor  for  each  item.  Details  are  set  forth,  further  on, 
under  the  discussion  of  the  unit  factors  for  each  of  the  11  districts. 


Labor 

Manual  labor  **  hours  @  E. 
Management  **  per  cent  of  manual  labor. 


Horse  labor  ** 

hours  @  E. 

Use  of  truck  ** 

miles  @  E. 

Feeds 

Pasture  **  acres  @  E. 

Hay  **  pounds 

@  E. 

Concentrates  ** 

pounds  @  E. 

Silage  **  poun 

ds  @  E. 

Miscellaneous  feeds  **  pounds 

@ 

//. 

BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      139 

Miscellaneous 
Hauling : 

For  butterfat,  100  X  B  per  pound. 
For  milk,  10  X  B  per  hundredweight. 

Supplies:  '—  X  $**. 
x 

Interest  on  operating  capital:  —  X  $**. 

Herd  charge:  —  X  $**. 
x 

Building  charge:  —  X  $**. 
x 

Corral  charge:   —  X  $**. 
x 

Equipment  charge:    —  X  $**. 
x 

The  sum  of  the  above  items  gives  the  total  gross  cost.  From  this,  the  following 
credits  must  be  deducted: 

Credits 

Calf:  **  XB. 

Manure:  —  X  $**. 
x 

The  difference  between  the  sum  of  these  two  credits  and  the  total  gross  cost 
is  the  cost  of  producing  1000  pounds  of  whole  milk.  To  determine  butterfat  cost, 
a  skimmilk  credit  must  be  added  to  the  two  credits  noted  above. 

Skimmilk:  **  @  B. 

The  sum  of  the  three  credits  deducted  from  the  total  gross  gives  the  cost  of 
producing  100  pounds  of  butterfat. 


Percentages  of  Different  Items  Entering  into  the  Cost  of  Producing 
Whole  Milk  and  Butterfat 

An  idea  of  the  relative  importance  of  the  different  items  entering 
into  the  costs  of  producing"  whole  milk  and  butterfat  can  be  gained 
from  the  percentage  of  each  entering  into  the  gross  costs.  Table  25 
gives  in  detail  for  each  of  the  11  districts  where  cost  studies  were 
conducted  and  for  the  dairies  from  which  full  and  usable  data  were 
collected  the  percentage  of  each  item  making  up  the  cost  totals. 


co   -*j 

si 


O    N    (D   NOO 


i-O    00    ©    CO    OS    CO 

06  «i  h        t-i  ci 


■*  ^    M    tO    00 

CO       '   t-J 


ffl    N    N 
■*    <N    cN 


co  oo  oo  co 


Cj    O    CO   N    ^t1 


<V    Tt<    CD    00    i-t 


05    O    N 
N    O)    N 


CO    lO 


O    ■*  CO    05    CO    t> 


©    1>    — I  CO    l>    CO    »D 

"O    CO  CO  <N 

I 


co  m 
CO   >o 


CO    •<*    •*  CO    t^    CO    CO 

■*'    IN  CO    O    t-i 


Ol    O    N  "*    CO    CO    CO 

id  co" 


t*    00    CO 

I 


.      CO    CD 


CO    N    © 

Tji  d  cd 


2  3  ^ 

o-  ™ 


=3  O 

O  C 

nj  CO 

CO  g 


CO    CO    CO 
IN    00 


4)    H    O    00N 


CO     -^     +s 


«     O     °     d    7t 


o    o 
S3  -S 


5  h  io  o  co 


co  >o  <N      :  o 

CO    00    CO 


—l    O    <N  O    CO    'ON 

rj<    CN  «0  -*       ' 


O    CO  (N    00    H    O) 


CO    CO  iO  lO 


WIN    HN00 


CO    t-i    CO  O    >D    <N 


t-i    <N    -#  ft    O    ffl    «5 

t>"   <N  <N    <N    .-< 


O   ffi    O    "J   ■* 


t»    ©    CO  "3   M    O)   N 

<N  CO    <N    i-I 


O    ©    ■*    ©    CO    o 


©    ©    -#  IfiN^N 

7  rt 


2  S 


*    o 

3  « 


gj 

J  § 

*0    co 

co    o 

•2  J2 


3£ 


"    i  «S  .2     o 
+j    bo  a;    c> 

O     at     aj     co 


w  O 


:  9*           :    O  : 

o  O    co      :'^  s; 

:    «  g    £?  J  .2  &      : 

cn  £  jS  u 


PQ    5 
a  cq 


4)    O    <M    O    CI    C-l 


n  o  ^  n 


CM  ©    CO    O    rH 

^  rH 


i-5    M  2 

3° 


OINN    H 


U)    N    (O    CO    N    h 


CO  iO    CM    CO 


CO    CO    '0    id 


<-h  i-h    -H    CO 


t<    CO    "tf    <N    t-h 

t*            CO    CO    CM    r-t 

a,         rft   rH   io      :      : 

o       o 

co 

<N            :      : 

co        o 
o 

o    « 


0)    lO   N    ^    ^    N 


^H  tH     CM     CO 


s    °   o 


OHO 
CM     CM      rH 


q    N    lO    CO    IM    h 

o 


00    CO    ©    CM 


.S   S 
S  § 

5    o 

^    GO 


0J    CO    t^ 

o 

^     CM     rH 


o    o 

a  * 


O    00    CM    CM    CM 


H^    CM    CO    rH 


0>    a 

rSQ 


£SS 


P  H 


P     r9     Q     P 


(/■ 

Fl 

* 

a 

H 

fl 

c? 

1—1 

M 

C    o>    $ 

Q  P  H 


142  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

UNIT    FACTORS    ENTERING    INTO    THE    PRODUCTION    OF    WHOLE    MILK    AND 

BUTTERFAT 

In  tables  26,  27,  and  28  immediately  following  are  set  forth  data 
showing  the  amount  of  labor,  feed,  and  other  items  entering  into  the 
production  of  1000  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  100  pounds  of  butterfat. 
The  findings  for  each  district  are  presented  individually.  In  every 
case,  data  from  all  the  dairies  studied  in  a  given  district,  as  appear- 
ing in  Part  II  of  this  report,  were  used  in  determining  the  figures  of 
unit  factors.  The  basic  data  is  in  accordance  with  conditions  encoun- 
tered during  the  year  1922. 

Since  the  rates  of  the  year  that  these  studies  were  made  are 
already  set  forth  in  Part  II,  no  further  reference  to  them  appears 
necessary  in  connection  with  the  unit  factors.  Unit  factors  in  terms 
of  time  and  quantity,  whenever  such  can  be  determined,  are  of  more 
lasting  value  and  interest  than  are  the  rates  which  may  hold  for  but 
limited  periods. 

The  items  manual  labor,  horse  labor,  use  of  trucks  and  automobiles, 
feeds,  management,  hauling,  supplies,  interest  on  operating  capital, 
herd  charge,  buildings  charge,  corrals  charge,  equipment  charge,  com- 
prise the  total  gross  charge,  from  which  is  then  deducted  the  total  of 
credits  to  give  the  net  cost. 

COST    OF    PRODUCTION    FIGURES    IN    RELATION    TO    PRICE-FIXING 

H.  E.  Erdman,  Associate  Professor  of  Rural  Institutions,  College 
of  Agriculture,  in  discussing  some  of  the  possibilities  as  well  as  some 
of  the  limitations  in  the  use  of  unit  cost  data  and  formulae  in  connec- 
tion with  price-fixing,  sounds  a  warning.    He  says : 

The  idea  has  naturally  been  put  forth  that  price  changes  might  be  made  in 
accordance  with  changes  in  the  costs  of  producing  milk  as  indicated  by  the  appli- 
cation of  current  prices  to  these  unit  factors.  This  idea  was  advanced  in  several 
parts  of  the  country  during  and  immediately  following  the  war.  The  dairymen 
in  the  New  York  and  Chicago  milk-producing  areas  particularly  had  data  of  this 
sort  at  hand,  and  naturally  attempted  to  establish  prices  of  whole  milk  on  the 
basis  of  cost  changes  so  shown. 

On  the  face  of  it,  this  plan  should  have  worked;  but  trouble  arose  at  once 
when  it  was  attempted  to  establish  prices  from  month  to  month  on  this  basis. 
Market  prices  of  whole  milk  over  any  short  period  are  governed  more  directly  by 
the  supply  of  and  demand  for  whole  milk  and  by  the  market  prices  of  such 
products  as  butter,  cheese  and  condensed  milk,  than  by  costs  of  production. 
Furthermore,  prices  of  butter  and  cheese  in  the  main  are  established  outside  of 
whole  milk  market  districts,  and  the  prices  of  all  three  are  very  directly  affected 
by  foreign  competition.  It  was  found  that  at  certain  times  milk  simply  could  not 
be  sold  on  the  basis  of  costs  thus  computed,  for  an  increase  in  the  price  of  milk 
almost  invariably  resulted  in  decreased  consumption.  The  attempt  thus  to  estab- 
lish prices  was  therefore  soon  given  up. 

Such  data  are  valuable,  however,  to  provide  starting-points  in  the  discussion 
of  milk  price  changes  whether  on  the  part  of  producers  demanding  increases  or  of 
consumers  or  dealers  demanding  decreases,  for  they  reflect  fairly  accurately  any 
important  changes  in  costs  of  production  so  long  as  methods  of  production  remain 
unchanged  in  the  localities  in  question. 


ji 

3S 

00 

* 

CN 

■*      1 

ajiiuup\[ 

co 

CO 

ID 

t~ 

CD 

•D 

«  1 

s 

«© 

M 

rH 

O     «4H                   O     U-, 

O   <£ 

o  w 

o   «*-. 

o  «_, 

O   «« 

o  ^, 

O      «H 

Q 

w 
a 

2  ^       2  "3 

CO     o3 

3    o 

2  ^ 

2  "3 

rfl       ° 

2  ^ 

3  O 

2  ^ 

0    o 

co  "^3 

2   "=4 

^fl    o 

03      CO            03      0) 

03     CO 

03     CO 

O 

O 

>  a      >  a 

>  a 

>   fl 

>  c 

t>    0 

>    0 

>    fl 

>  fl 

u-;     O        u-     O 

t«     O 

«*H         O 

««   o 

««   o 

«_    o 

<~   o 

o           o 

O 

O 

©lo        ©|© 

s|s 

2  Is 

-Is 

-Is 

1° 

00    © 

-Is 

-Is 

CO                   00 

tN 

lO 

Tji 

t^ 

© 

00 

CN 

aSj^qo  ^uauidinbg 

»o               CO 

"* 

lO 

b- 

"0 

CO 

© 

Tt< 

CD                 ID 

ID 

os 

CO 

,_l 

■* 

ID 

CN 

aSiraqo  s[bjjoq 

CM                  t* 

i 

CO 

>o 

CN 

»D 

"* 

"* 

»D 

©                   00 

co 

b- 

CD 

O 

o 

CD 

^_i 

93xeqo  sSuqqmg 

00                   CM 

00 

T* 

00 

OS 

© 

CN 

— 

3 

1-1 

1-1 

1-1 

1-1 

O                   CD 

s 

CO 

CD 

O 

<* 

CD 

CN 

aSjBqo  pjaH 

i 

00 

OS 
CN 

ID 
CN 

•D 

CN 
CN 

© 

p3^ldBO  Sui 

O                   CN 

00 

© 

00 

o 

o 

»D 

t^ 

CN 

© 

-^jrado  no  ^saja^ui 

i 

o            ■«* 

co 

lO 

o 

OS 

CN 

© 

00 

saqddng 

ID                   CO 

8 

VO 

00 

"5 

CO 

© 

"* 

CO 

co               <u 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

03                    03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

o3 

(h 

+3 

SuqnBjj 

a                fl 
co               a> 

a 

CO 

0 
CO 

a 

CO 

CI 

0 

fl 

fl 

(-1                          fcn 

u 

ti 

G 

U 

o 
O 

3                     fl 

9 

fl 

3 

O 

3 

0 

3 

o        o 

O 

0 

O 

O 

0 

O 

O 

joqiq  psnuBui 

CO                   CN 

»o 

b- 

co 

00 

© 

,_, 

DO 

00 

g 

0 

Oh 
P 

O 
g 

jo  ^uao  ja,J[ 

CN 

CO 

CO 

CO 
CN 

CD 

>o 

00 
CN 

© 

CN 

spunod 

co 

* 

'snoauTqposrj^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

8 

CO 

spunod  'saaqnj 

CN 

CN 
CN 

PUB  S^OO|J 

CO 

l^ 

CN 

a 

2 

05 

O 

spunod 
'paaj  uaaiQ 

CN                   O 

CD                   CO 
CO                   OS 

CD 
CN 
b- 

g 

00 

© 

co 

ID 
ID 

00 
CO 
CO 

fc 

spunod  'aSiqiS 

CN                   t- 

b- 
b- 

CO 

as 

CN 

CN 
ID 
CN 

© 

© 

© 

g 

spunod 
'sa^'Ba^uaouoQ 

CN                  b- 

rH                        CN 

e 

CO 

CO 

o 

OS 
CO 

CO 

CN 

CO 

© 

CO                  00 

o 

o 

00 

00 

■* 

© 

© 

spunod  'Abh 

os             .-i 

■*                    00 

CN 

O 

CO 
CO 

CN 

CO 

o 

ID 

© 

CN 

ID 

CO 

rH                        T* 

os 

** 

OS 

CO 

CO 

CO 

»D                 b- 

IQ 

OS 

o 

00 

CO 

ain^SBj 

co            T-! 

CO 

- 

CN 

sapui 

OS                    00 

•* 

_ 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

'sajiqouio^nB 

^ 

JO  S5[0nj^  JO  8Sj} 

smoq 

Tt<                          ^ 

CO 

_ 

CO 

OS 

o 

rJH 

© 

'joqiq  9sjoh 

i-l                  CO 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CO 

rt 

rt 

CO                  iH 

iH 

•H 

co 

CO 

t^ 

»o 

CN 

'aoq^i  p3nuBj>\[ 

rjH                   b- 

CN                  i-l 

OS 

o 

CN 

00 

§ 

00 

CO 
CN 

O 
CN 

5 

1 

i 

o3 

1 

o 

6 

1 

2 
Q 

nboldt-Del  Nor 
meda-Contra  C 

c 

-t- 
c 
s 

£ 

t 
4 

"3 

03 

op 
a 

3 

! 

c 

a 

§0 

a 
o 
1 

i 

< 

c 
e 
a 

1 

d 
co 
W 

S  s 
w  S 

-e  fl 

3       dec  . 

fl 

s 

o 

c 

O  OQ 

W 

<J 

>* 

02 

£ 

w 

k) 

cc 

S 

En     h 
W 


CM 

o 

>o 

,Q 

p 

o 

spunod  'jjjuuuit>[g 

co 

CO' 
CM 

CT> 
•O 

co 

CO 

co 

1 

CM 

CM 

CN 

CM 

CM 

1 

CO 

CT> 

OJ 

t^ 

t-» 

i— I 

t~ 

o 

IO 

■* 

co 

CM 

8inUBT\T     1 

1 

o 

rH 

'""' 

1-1 

1-1 

s 

s 

OJ      CD 

D    c 

CD 

CD     0) 

0J      ^ 

■3    5 

si 

§     1 

K 

"5    ° 

XI           ^     S   «; 

-3    o 

<*-.       X    o 

.*,        /3    o  «*- 

O 

X 

>   o 

~3        rf   5 
t        >   o 

CD         ?    o    « 

03  ^_ 

1        ^ 

03            g    «*-    "S 

6 

"o 

"S   o 

*o 

o 

"S 

*o 

"1 

2        «|2 

si 

=>           -1  1 

2        S| 

3        S|§ 

^H 

o 

CO 

CM 

co 

o 

ogjBqo  ^U9radmbg 

00 

N 

co 

CM 

Tt< 

<* 

co 

r~ 

t^ 

lO 

o 

en 

agjBqo  s^jjoq 

CO 

o 
m 

00 

■* 

CD 

co 

Ttl 

•& 

CD 

CO 

CD 

CM 

co 

eSj'Bqo  sSmppng 

co 

CM 

id 

o 
co 

CM 

CO 
CM 

CM 

cm 

rH 

t^ 

co 

rH 

O 

agi'Bqo  p.i9H 

CM 

co 

O 

00 

id 

p3^ldB0  3ui 

oo 

co 

CM 

0> 

CM 

00 

CO 

CM 

CM 

-^Baodo  uo  ^S3J9^iii 

^ 

TH 

CO 

rH 

co 

00 

co 

saqddng 

CD 

to 

r"| 

■* 

r^ 

CM 

CM 

m 

CD 

a 

CD 

<u 

CD 

CD 

+i 

-*J 

bfi 

OJ 

si 

08 

c3 

03 

c3 

c 

(- 

■-, 

3 

c 

C 

G 

a 

a 

a 

c 

a 

CD 

CD 

CD 

t- 

U 

U 

w 

■f* 

(• 

O 

D 

D 

3 

3 

0 

3 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

joqiq  [BnuBui 

^ 

io 

t^ 

CD 

CO 

CM 

OS 

o 

JO  ^U90  J9J 

00 

CM 

CO 

co 

CD 

CD 

CD 

}U8UI33l3U'ej\[ 

CM 

O 

P 
o 

spunod 

C5 

CS 

Cft 

'snoauBqaosij,^ 

g 

3 

spunod  'sjaqn^ 

"* 

CD 

* 
O 

puB  S^OO^J 

CD 

CC 

i-H 

O 

■* 

spunod 

o 

CO 

CO 

'paaj  U38JQ 

CM 

CC 

Q 

o 

o 

CD 

co 

r^ 

spunod  'aSiqig 

CM 

c: 

CO 
Oi 

CD 

CO 

spunod 

O 

o 

CD 

o 

.CM 

CO 

co 

C3S 
03 

CO 

o 

'sa^Bi^uaouoQ 

I- 

CM 

co 

CM 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

O 

iO 

O 

spunod  'A^jj 

CO 

CM 

o 

CM 

CO 

co 

CM 
CM 

CO 

co 

CM 

CM 

CO 

ID                       >0 

Tj< 

CM 

oc 

f^    Sfi 

lO 

CD                 ir: 

co 

cc 

O      CD 

aanfSBj 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CT 

«     o3 

sapui 

iC 

t> 

CM 

o 

c 

t^ 

'sapqouioj'nB 

t> 

CC 

CM 

jo  sqon.il  jo  osft 

sanoq 

u: 

«- 

CM 

<r. 

■«* 

Oi 

'joqtq  asjojj 

CC 

cc 

id 

cc 

i-i 

ID 

t^ 

CN 

o 

00 

sjnoq 

t>. 

CC 

CD 

CO 

CM 

'joqiq  p3nuBj/\j 

"t 

if 

lO 

IC 

ir 

t^ 

CO 

« 

9 

E 

c 
E 

| 

ID 

a 

•a 

C5 

QQ 

i 

c 
c 

C 

i 

Q 

c 

a 

E 

9 

D1 

03 

| 

1 

1 

O 

s 

c 
c 

a 
3 

L. 

>o 

t>. 

«o 

>o 

co 

<o 

CD 

,)jnui:i\[ 

rji 

CO 

so 

tft 

0)     « 

o>    5> 

4)     CU 

<p     4) 

3 

1 §* 

5    §- 

5  § 

a         5    O  «-. 

a 

>  "o    o 

£-sl 

>   ^ 

e3           g  ««     cci 
o         >*    o    o 

o 

cS 

o 

"o 

*o 

0 

"o 

-l§ 

*«I8 

CN  |  2 

00  |g              '*|g 

CN 

00 

o 

lO 

aSxBqo  ^uauidmbgr 

CN 
8© 

t^ 

cn 

- 

Ci 

co 

iO 

■* 

93JBI{0  sjbjjoq 

lo 

© 

- 

o 

<* 

<* 

co 

OS 

CD 

aSxeqo  sSinpjing 

CO 

co 

o> 

O 

CN 

CN 

CO 

«& 

T-fl 

CO 

to 

CD 

aSjraqo  pi9H 

lO 

LO 

CN 

T* 

CM 

«o 

Tt< 

<s© 

p^iduo  gui 

CN 

00 

CD 
CN 

-^tjjado  uo  ^saja^uj 

8 

iO 

o 

05 

-* 

saqddng 

■"J 

TH 

CO 

O 

CN 

CO 

e© 

03 

0) 

03 

0) 

m 

d 

"§ 

~C8 

"rt 

(h 

FH 

-tJ 

-IJ 

3 

d 

c 

C3 

S3 

0) 

0) 

CD 

cy 

Eh 

w 

Sh 

Si 

tH 

h 

S 

3 

3 

9 

3 

O 

O 
so 

o 

O 

o 

o 

aoqtq  pnuBui 

o 

o 

o 

rt 

6 

jo  ^uao  jag 

/ 

'O 

oc 

Q 

O 
p 

— }U3uic>S'eu'ep\[ 

rb 

CN 

<N 

spunod 

- 

o 

'snoautfqaosij,^ 

2 

spunod  'sjaqin 

CD 
CO 

S 
H 

Q 

td 

put?  s^ooy; 

O 

co 

CO 

spunod 
'paaj  uaajQ 

O 
CN 

LO 

CM 

CD 

00 
CN 
K 

O 
co 

T* 

,-1 

o 

fa 

spunod  'aSiqig 

CN 

"O 

O 
00 

CN 

spunod 

'S3^13J^U90UO3 

CN 
OS 
CN 

00 
00 

CN 

LO 

00 

o 

00 

o 

spunod  'A-bh 

CO 

00 

•OS 

CD 

rH 

CN 

^ 

co 

LO 

l> 

co 

CO 

o 

00 

o 

aan^sBjj 

00 

CN 

co 

sairui 

CO 

t^ 

t- 

OS 

'saiiqouio^nB 

Tj* 

(M 

CO 

a 

jo  sqo'nj'j  jo  asjq 

sjnoq 

- 

t^ 

•^ 

- 

'joqiei  9SJOH 

CO 

l~- 

CO 

lO 

t^ 

LO 

CD 

o 

sjnoq 

LO 

CO 

* 

CO 

'joqej  j-enuep\r 

LO 

<# 

L0 

»o 

d 

A 

g 

5 

to 
c 

c3 

'2 

Q 

o 

22 
3 

G 

c 

c 

_j 

<< 

c 

11 

3 

o  m 

U 

i— ( 

1-1 

a 

* 

146  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PART  IV.     WAYS  FOR  INCREASING  DAIRY  PROFITS  DIS- 
CLOSED BY  STUDYING  COSTS  OF  PRODUCTION 

Certain  suggestive  ways  for  increasing  profits  from  dairying 
operations  have  developed  during  the  course  of  this  year-and-a-half 
study  of  the  costs  of  producing  milk  on  dairies  in  11  important  com- 
mercial dairying  sections  of  the  state,  located  in  21  counties.  It  is 
the  plan  to  set  forth  here  some  of  the  more  outstanding  of  these  in 
the  hope  that  individual  dairymen  may  thereby  perceive  opportunities 
for  benefiting  themselves  through  instituting  economies,  curtailing 
leaks,  or  otherwise  reorganizing  their  business  on  a  more  profitable 
basis. 

The  individual  dairy  farmer  can  perhaps  do  but  little  toward 
actually  determining  the  prices  that  he  will  receive  for  his  product. 
He  can,  however,  do  much  in  regulating  his  own  business.  That  a 
good  deal  of  improvement  is  possible  along  the  line  of  greater  economy 
is  an  interesting  and  important  outcome  of  these  investigations. 
While  no  attempt  is  here  made  to  cover  all  things  which  can  be  done 
by  the  individual,  enough  are  set  forth  to  show  something  of  the  sit- 
uation and  to  start  thinking  dairymen  along  this  line  of  endeavor. 

RELATION    OF    PRODUCTION    COSTS    TO    PRICE 

A  discussion  of  whether  or  not  prices  should  be  raised  or  lowered 
is  not  particularly  pertinent  to  this  publication  but  attention  may 
well  be  called  to  the  fact  that  in  all  the  districts  studied  there  are  a 
number  of  dairies  selling  their  output  at  a  price  below  the  cost  of 
producing.  For  purposes  of  illustration  two  districts  have  been 
selected  for  tabulation,  one  specializing  in  the  sale  of  butterfat,  the 
Marin-Sonoma  section,  the  other  of  whole  milk,  the  Alameda-Contra 
Costa-Santa  Clara  area.  Cost  data  for  the  dairies  in  each  group  are 
set  forth  in  two  tables  in  order  of  costs,  together  with  the  percentage 
of  total  production  contributed  by  each.  This  is  done  in  such  a  way 
that  one  can  tell  at  a  glance  what  amount  of  the  milk  production  of 
these  dairies  would  be  curtailed  if  the  output  had  been  stopped  when 
average  price  received  and  cost  average  came  into  balance.  Though 
the  data  are  drawn  from  a  single  year  and  hence  may  be  subject  to 
future  changes  in  operating  costs,  overhead  charges,  or  prices  received 
thus  altering  the  point  where  costs  and  prices  come  into  balance,  yet 
they  are  instructive  and  possess  a  marked  suggestive  value.    Further- 


Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      147 

more,  the  idea  can  well  be  extended  to  the  study  of  the  entire  output 
of  a  given  community  in  order  to  determine  whether  or  not  there  is 
over-production  and  thus  whether  the  business  should  be  curtailed 
or  a  wider  market  sought.  From  the  dairymen 's  standpoint  it  serves 
to  emphasize  his  need  of  knowing  just  what  his  business  is  doing  so 
that  if  his  activities  are  placing  him  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  balance 
line  he  may  take  steps  to  improve  conditions.  As  the  dairies  on  which 
the  studies  were  conducted  are  typical  of  the  many  in  any  of  the 
districts  under  observation,  the  situation  shown  in  the  table  holds 
for  all. 

The  manner  of  presenting,  as  herein  set  forth,  is  sometimes  re- 
ferred to  as  the  "bulkline"  method  of  comparing  costs  and  prices, 
and  is  of  value  in  showing  the  point  which  prices  should  reach  to 
insure  a  satisfactory  supply  of  any  given  commodity  within  the  limits 
of  current  costs. 

TABLE  29 

Showing  the  Percentage  of  Production  Above,  Below,  and  on  a  Line  with 

Average  Costs  and  Average  Receipts.    Data  from  Nineteen  Dairies 

Producing  Butterfat,  Marin  and  Sonoma  Counties 


Cost  of 

Percentage  of 

' 

Number 

producing  a 

total 

Accumulative 

Point  of  average  costs 

of  dairy 

pound  of 
butterfat 

production 
contributed 

percentages 

and  receipts 

Cents 

259 

35.6 

10.6 

10.6 

258 

38.0 

4.1 

14.7 

268 

39.0 

5.1 

19.8 

261 

39.0 

4.6 

24.4 

263 

39.0 

6.2 

30.6 

103 

41.0 

7.3 

37.9 

Averaged  price  received 
43.8  cents 

274 

44.5 

3.1 

41.0 

264 

46.0 

7.5 

48.5 

260 

47.0 

4.3 

52.8 

Average  cost 
49.2  cents 

262 

49.5 

3.4 

56.2 

275 

52.5 

11.7 

67.9 

281 

53.0 

5.7 

73.6 

265 

53.0 

3.8 

77.4 

278 

58.0 

4.2 

81.6 

104 

60.5 

4.2 

85.8 

98a 

62.5 

4.6 

90.4 

257 

70.0 

4.5 

94.9 

95 

74.0 

2.8 

97.7 

102 

82.0 

2.3 

100.0 

148 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


From  these  data  it  is  evident  that  of  the  total  output  from  these 
dairies  41  per  cent  was  produced  at  a  cost  equal  to  or  below  the 
average  price  received  during  the  year.  Men  able  to  sell  at  an  equal 
price  broke  even,  men  producing  at  a  cost  below  the  selling  price 
obviously  made  a  profit.  On  the  other  hand  dairymen  whose  costs 
'were  more  than  the  selling  price  received  produced  at  a  loss.  It  is 
significant  that  more  than  half  of  the  production  from  this  small 
group  of  dairies  was  sold  at  less  than  cost,  cost  being  considered  as 
figured  after  the  manner  shown  in  the  summary  tables  of  Part  II. 
In  numbers  this  means  that  but  seven  of  the  19  dairymen  in  this 
.group  produced  at  a  cost  equal  to  or  less  than  the  selling  price.  In 
a  similar  way  the  findings  for  a  whole  milk  district — the  Alameda, 
Contra  Costa,  and  Santa  Clara  section — are  presented  in  detail  in 
table  30. 

TABLE  30 

Showing  the  Percentage  cf  Production  Above,  Below,  and  on  a  Line  with 

Average  Costs  and  Average  Keceipts.     Data  from  Twenty  Dairies 

in  the  Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  and  Santa  Clara  District 


Cort  of 

rTrm"  er  of 

production  per 

Proportion 

Cumulative 

Point  of  average  costs  and 

of  dairy 

100  pounds  of 
■whole  milk 

of  output 

output 

receipts 

9 

$2.13 

.8 

.8 

14 

2.19 

6.4 

7.2 

7 

2.44 

.6 

7.8 

230 

2.45 

10.2 

18.0 

Average  price  received 

G 

2.51 

12. 

30.0 

$2.50 

2 

2.55 

6.1. 

36.1 

220  \ 

2  63 

7.5 

43.6 

228 

2.69 

6.2 

49.8 

227 

2.72 

1.2 

51.0 

13 

2.76 

2.6 

53.6 

4 

2.79 

2.0 

55.6 

Average  cost  $2.83 

3 

2.86 

10  2 

65.8 

21 

2.88 

4.1 

69.9 

3 .  24 

10.0 

79.9 

220 

3 .  26 

5.4 

85.3 

in 

3  33 

6.6 

91   9 

3    [3 

2.S 

91   7 

1   0 

CO  G 

17 

,    ,, 

1.9 

93.3 

IS 

4  :;i 

1    5 

100.0 

Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTEBFAT       L49 

Table  30  indicates  the  situation  with  respect  to  dairymen  whose 
costs  were  studied  in  Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  and  Santa  Clara  coun- 
ties. Of  the  20  dairies  only  30  per  cent  of  the  total  production  was 
secured  for  costs  at  or  below  the  average  price  received  by  them  of 
$2.50  per  100  pounds.  This  means  that  70  per  cent  of  the  supply 
from  this  group  was  produced  at  a  loss. 

From  tables  made  up  for  all  the  dairies  in  the  other  districts  where 
costs  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  were  studied,  similar 
deductions  were  made.     The  findings  are  set  forth  in  the  folic 
paragraphs. 

In  the  Areata  district  of  Humboldt  County  none  of  the  output  was  produced  at 
a  cost  within  the  price  received  for  the  product,  when  sold  either  as  butterfat  or 
as  whole  milk.  In  the  Orick-Requa  district  2  dairymen  of  the  12  from  whom 
records  were  obtained  produced  both  butterfat  and  whole  milk  at  a  co  t  less  thru 
the  price  received  for  the  output.  Their  production  amounted  to  13.4  per  cent 
of  the  butterfat  and  15.3  per  cent  of  the  whole  milk  totals  produced  by  all  tb j 
dairymen  in  the  district  from  whom  data  were  secured. 

Butterfat  costs  in  the  Sacramento-Yolo  district  were  such  11. at,  of  (he  dai-y- 
men  reporting  costs  in  this  study,  only  two,  producing  but  a  iiii'e  more  than  8 
per  cent  of  the  output  of  the  group,  received  a  price  equal  to  or  less  than  their 
costs  of  production.  The  situation  in  connection  with  the  production  of  whole 
milk  was  more  favorable,  practically  24  per  cent  being  produced  at  costs  not 
exceeding  the  price  received,  yet  76  per  cent  even  in  whole  milk  production  co  t 
more  than  the  price  received.  Twenty-nine  of  the  41  dairymen  produced  wl 
milk  at  a  loss. 

In  the  San  Joaquin-Stanislaus  district,  5  of  the  17  dairies  where  cost  data  were 
collected  produced  their  butterfat  at  costs  equal' to  or  below  the  price  received. 
Their  combined  production  was  44  per  cent  of  the  total  yields  recorded  for  the 
group.  Thus,  over  half  the  output  of  these  dairymen  went  on  the  market  at  less 
than  cost  of  production. 

Seven  of  the  17  dairymen  in  the  Fresno  County  district  produced  butterfat 
at- a  cost  equal  to  or  below  the  price  received  during  the  year.  Their  combined 
production  amounted  to  50.8  per  cent  of  the  production  of  ail  the  dairymen  in 
the  group  where  cost  data  were  collected.  Figured  on  a  whole  milk  basis,  8  dairy- 
men were  able  to  show  costs  either  equal  to  or  below  the  price  received,  their 
total  output  being  55.6  per  cent  of  that  of  the  entiie  group. 

In  Kern  County,  7  of  the  15  dairymen  from  whom  cost  data  were  obtained 
were  able  to  produce  butterfat  at  a  cost  equal  to  or  below  the  average  price  re- 
ceived. Total  production  of  these  7  amounted  to  70  per  cent  of  the  total  for  the 
group.  On  a  whole  milk  basis,  9  produced  at  or  below  the  selling  price,  their 
combined  output  being  74  per  cent  of  the  total. 

In  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  district,  17  of  the  40  dairymen  included  in  the 
study  conducted  in  this  section  produced  whole  milk  at  a  cost  equal  to  or  below 
the  average  price  per  pound  of  butterfat  content  paid  for  whole  milk.  Their 
combined  production  was  but  34.1  per  cent  of  the  total  output  of  the  group  studied. 
This  left  a  total  of  65.9  per  cent  selling  at  less  than  the  cost  of  production. 


150  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Figured  on  a  whole  milk  basis,  6  of  the  13  San  Diego  County  dairymen  whose 
costs  were  studied  were  able  to  produce  at  a  cost  equal  to  or  below  the  average 
price  received  during  the  year.  The  combined  output  of  these  men  amounted  to 
62.2  per  cent  of  the  total  for  the  group.  Figured  as  butterfat,  only  4  men  pro- 
duced at  a  cost  about  equal  to  or  below  the  average  price  received,  their  production 
being  38.5  per  cent  of  the  total  for  the  group. 

Six  of  the  20  San  Luis  Obispo  dairymen  who  cooperated  in  this  study  pro- 
duced, butterfat  at  a  cost  equal  to  or  below  the  price  received.  Their  combined 
output  amounted  to  nearly  40  per  cent  of  the  total.  Fourteen  dairymen  producing 
60  per  cent  of  the  output  therefore  faced  costs  greater  than  the  price  they  received. 

In  Monterey,  San  Benito,  and  Santa  Cruz  counties  most  of  the  dairymen  whose 
dairies  were  studied  also  sold  at  a  price  below  the  cost  of  production.  Of  the 
19  dairymen,  all  but  two  lost  money  when  their  output  was  figured  on  a  butterfat 
basis,  these  two  producing  but  a  little  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  combined 
output  of  the  dairymen  of  this  group.  Similarly  but  two  dairymen  received  a 
price  for  their  output,  when  figured  on  a  whole  milk  basis,  equal  to  or  more  than 
their  costs  of  production,  and  their  output  constituted  but  a  little  more  than  10 
per  cent  of  the  total  for  the  group. 

In  reviewing  the  situation  as  set  forth,  above,  some  allowance 
must  necessarily  be  made  for  certain  uneconomical  and  inefficient 
practices  for  which  dairymen  are  responsible.  Obviously,  in  deter- 
mining a  price  that  the  consumer  should  be  called  upon  to  pay,  it  is 
necessary  that  dairying  be  placed  upon  a  basis  of  efficiency  so  that 
labor  is  used  to  the  best  advantage,  economy  in  feeding  is  practiced, 
and  profitless  cows  are  eliminated.  In  brief,  proper  handling  of  the 
dairy,  intelligent  management,  and  conservatism  in  making  invest- 
ments in  cattle,  buildings,  and  equipment  must  go  hand  in  hand. 

These  tables  show  that  in  radically  different  dairying  sections, 
different  in  average  costs,  average  yields,  methods  of  handling  average 
receipts,  and  kinds  of  products,  there  are  dairies  producing  at  a  loss. 
Such  data  emphasize  the  need  for  both  community  interest  in  the 
dairying  business  and  for  individual  inquiry  on  the  part  of  the  dairy- 
men as  to  what  means  can  be  taken  on  the  dairy  to  help  the  situation. 


ECONOMIZING    IN    LABOR    AND    FEED 

Of  the  many  factors  entering  into  the  cost  of  producing  whole 
milk  and  butterfat  the  two  outstanding  items  are  labor  and  feed. 
Economy  in  operating  expenses  will  therefore  pay  greatest  returns 
when  directed  toward  saving  in  these  expenditures. 

The  importance  of  feed  and  labor  in  the  cost  totals  is  shown  in 
table  31. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERPAT      151 

The  table  indicates  that  labor  and  feed  ranged  from  73.5  per  cent 
of  the  total  gross  cost  in  one  district  to  85.7  per  cent  in  another. 
Labor  alone  ranged  from  20.9  per  cent  to  37.4  per  cent  of  the  total 
gross  cost  and  feed  alone  from  42  per  cent  to  56  per  cent.  Because 
these  two  items  make  up  such  a  large  part  of  the  total  costs,  attention 
may  well  be  given  to  their  efficient  use  and  management. 

Buying  in  bulk  and  when  prices  are  low  are  obvious  factors  for 
economy.  In  feeding,  care  should  be  exercised  to  prevent  waste.  The 
use  of  properly  designed  feed  racks  makes  for  a  saving  of  hay.    At 


TABLE  31 

Showing  Percentages  of  Labor  and  Feed  Entering  into  Milk 

Costs 

Production 

Percentage  of  gross  cost 

Percentage 

Labor 

Feed 

and  feed 

Humboldt-Del  Norte 

Per  cent 
31.2 
24.8 
29.4 
28.6 
31.5 
30.0 
30.4 
20.9 
26.7 
37.4 
29.3 

Per  cent 
54.5 
53.3 
45.5 
47.2 
42.0 
45.9 
52.0 
56.5 
51.8 
43.5 
53.1 

Per  cent 

85.7 

78.1 

74.9 

75.8 

73.5 

75.9 

82.4 

77.4 

78.5 

80.9 

82.4 

times,  the  prices  of  certain  kinds  of  hay  or  mill  feeds  mount  very 
high.  Then  substitution  should  be  made  of  other  less  expensive  feeds 
from  which  the  same,  or  practically  the  same,  results  can  be  obtained. 
In  utilizing  concentrates,  the  cow  herself  should  possess  a  capacity  to 
make  full  and  economic  use  of  these  higher  priced  feeds,  and  con- 
versely cows  possessing  such  capacity  should  be  fed  to  fully  develop 
their  inherent  productive  capacity.  Feeding  a  cow  beyond  her 
capacity  results  in  waste;  on  the  other  hand,  the  quantity  of  feed 
supplied  each  cow  should  not  be  below  the  quantity  she  requires  for 
the  most  efficient  production.  The  most  economical  use  of  feeds  comes 
through  careful  buying,  careful  feeding,  and  utilization  of  knowledge 
concerning  the  production  of  each  individual  animal. 


152 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Variation  in  Feed  Costs  of  Different  Dairies 

To  illustrate  the  range  in  feed  costs  per  100  pounds  of  whole  milk 
or  per  pound  of  butterfat,  the  costs  by  individual  dairies  in  three 
districts  operating  under  different  conditions  are  shown  in  table  32. 

TABLE  32 
G nc wing  Variation  in  Feed  Cost  per  100  Pounds  of  Milk  or  1  Pound  of 

BUTTERFAT 


Alarr.eda-Contra  Costa- 
Santa  Clara 

Kern 

Los  Angeles 

and  Orange 

Cost  of  feed  a 

Cost  of  feed  a 

Cost  of  feed  a 

D  Jry  number 

100  pounds 

Dairy  number 

pound  of 

Dairy  number 

100  pounds 

of  milk 

butterfat 

of  milk 

Cents 

14 

S   .C06 

75 

19.4 

403 

$1.63 

9 

.'.51 

67 

21.4 

353 

1.73 

21 

.9:4 

76 

23.6 

129 

1.81 

6 

.9:0 

57 

24.9 

363 

1.81 

7 

1.027 

72 

25.8 

83 

1.82 

2C0 

1.0S9 

63 

26.0 

131 

1.83 

13 

1.113 

59 

30.5 

126 

1.91 

2 

1.123 

71 

33.9 

358 

1.93 

10 

1 .  235 

58 

34.0 

141 

1.94 

2  26  A 

1   2',o 

62 

34  0 

93 

1.95 

221 

1.431 

56 

35.0 

91 

1.99 

4 

1.4Q1 

66 

37.2 

366 

2.03 

227 

1.41  5 

61 

38.8 

90 

2.08 

3 

1  5  0 

65 

52.7 

352 

2.09 

12 

1 .  02S 

60 

56.4 

138 

2.11 

16 

1.635 

89 

2.11 

17 

1.680 

92 

2.15 

23 

1.695 

402 

2.18 

18 

1.922 

143 

2.20 

29 

1.942 

82 
123 
401 
364 
365 
359 
136 
361 
355 
142 
404 
362 
367 
356 
137 
124 
125 
360 
140 
400 
134 

2.20 
2.21 
2.21 
2.25 
2.25 
2.29 
2.33 
2.38 
2.38 
2.40 
2.47 
2.51 
2.55 
2.60 
2.64 
2.65 
2.66 
2.70 
2.72 
2.73 
2.91 

Average 

$1,340 

Average 

31.1 

Average 

$2.23 

BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      153 

This  table  shows  that  in  the  Alameda-Contra  Costa-Santa  Clara 
district  the  average  cost  of  feed  per  100  pounds  of  milk  ranged  from 
a  low  of  90.6  cents  to  a  high  of  $1.94  with  an  average  of  $1.34.  The 
lowest  figure  in  the  data  for  this  district  is  traceable  to  a  high  produc- 
tion per  cow  and  the  use  of  cheap  hay,  the  next  tAvo  lowest  costs  to 
use  of  pasture.  The  highest  figure  is  largely  due  to  a  price  for  hay 
somewhat  higher  than  the  district  average  and  the  next  few  highest 
largely  to  a  production  somewhat  beiowr  the  average. 

For  the  production  of  one  pound  of  butterfat  in  the  Kern  district, 
the  feed  cost  ranged  from  19.4  cents  to  56.4  cents,  with  an  average 
of  31.1  cents  for  the  15  dairies.  As  far  as  could  be  ascertained,  the 
low  cost  of  feed  was  due  to  an  abundance  of  pasture  for  a  longer 
period  than  was  available  to  the  average  dairy  in  the  district,  and 
the  greater  proportion  of  this  pasture  to  hay  fed  than  with  most  of 
the  dairies.  In  one  case  of  high  feed  cost,  low  production  was  prob- 
ably responsible.  In  the  two  cases  of  highest  feed  cost,  the  amount 
of  hay  reported  was  excessive  or  else  there  was  great  waste  in  feeding. 

The  feed  charge  in  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  district  ranged  from 
$1.63  to  $2.91  per  100  pounds  of  milk  with  an  average  of  $2.23  for 
the  40  dairies.  Low  feed  cost  was  accomplished  very  largely  through 
high  production,  while  in  the  cases  of  high  feed  costs  there  was  an 
unnecessary  waste  in  hay,  too  much  being  used,  or  else  the  production 
was  low. 

Variation  in  Labor  Costs  of  Different  Dairies 

The  variation  in  labor  costs  per  100  pounds  of  who>e  milk  or  per 
pound  of  butterfat  on  individual  dairies  is  illustrated  in  tab'c  33. 

According  to  the  data  presented  in  table  33,  the  range  in  labor 
cost  per  100  pounds  of  milk  in  the  Alameda-Contra  Costa-Santa  Clara 
district  was  from  a  low  of  40  cents  to  a  high  of  90  cents,  with  an  aver- 
age of  66  cents.  The  three  dairies  reporting  the  lowest  labor  costs 
used  milking  machines,  to  the  use  of  which,  at  least  in  part,  can  be 
attributed  the  low  labor  charge.  The  high  figure  can  be  attributed 
to  low  production  in  part;  the  next  high  figure  to  higher  wages  than 
were  ordinarily  paid  in  the  district;  and  the  third  high  figure  again 
to  low  production.  The  costs  of  labor  on  the  fifteen  dairies  in  Kern 
County  ranged  from  9.5  cents  to  31.3  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat,  with 
an  average  of  14.9  cents.  The  dairy  with  the  lowest  labor  co:ts  evi- 
dently increased  the  efficiency  of  the  labor  by  the  use  of  a  milking 
machine.  Other  cases  of  low  labor  costs  were  noted  where  the  operator 
and  family  did  all  the  work  and  reported  family  wages  at  a  lower 


154 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


rate  than  was  ordinarily  given.  Where  the  cost  of  labor  was  high, 
it  was  invariably  found  that  the  average  production  per  cow  of  these 
dairies  was  low. 

TABLE  33 

Showing  Variation  in  Cost  of  Manual  Labor  per  Unit  of  Production  in 

Three  Districts 


Alameda-Contra  Costa- 
Santa  Clara 

Kern 

Los  Angeles 

and  Orange 

Cost  of  labor  a 

Cost  of  labor  a 

Cost  of  labor  a 

Dairy  number 

100  pounds 

Dairy  number 

pound  of 

Dairy  number 

100  pounds 

of  milk 

butterfat 

of  milk 

230 

$   .408 

72 

$   .095 

366 

$  .407 

229 

.436 

75 

.119 

401 

.428 

23 

.578 

62 

.122 

93 

.458 

14 

.611 

57 

.131 

402 

.477 

226A 

.622 

58 

.134 

403 

.487 

3 

.656 

76 

.139 

82 

.552 

2 

.672 

67 

.141 

355 

.573 

4 

.672 

63 

.142 

361 

.574 

228 

.673 

65 

.144 

404 

.579 

10 

.692 

71 

.149 

353 

.581 

9 

.695 

59 

.156 

356 

.585 

13 

.740 

60 

.161 

143 

.587 

16 

.741 

66 

.204 

400 

.615 

227 

.744 

56 

.237 

363 

.632 

21 

.758 

61 

.313 

352 

.635 

7 

.762 

359 

.638 

12 

.787 

365 

.644 

18 

.825 

140 

.658 

6 

.895 

91 

.693 

17 

.902 

124 
358 
131 
126 
367 
141 

90 
129 
137 

92 
123 
360 

83 
362 
134 
125 
142 
136 

89 
138 
364 

.722 
.726 
.733 
.742 
.748 
.767 
.767 
.768 
.777 
.778 
.792 
.813 
.823 
.830 
.887 
.928 
.940 
.942 
.987 
1.027 
1.032 

Average 

$   .658 

Average  ' 

$  .149 

Average 

$   .680 

Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      155 

In  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  district,  the  labor  charge  ranged  from 
41  cents  to  $1.03  per  100  pounds  of  milk,  with  an  average  of  68  cents. 
High  production  per  cow  was  the  chief  reason  for  low  labor  costs. 
More  milkers  in  number  than  the  average  for  similar  sized  herds 
resulted  in  high  labor  charges,  even  though  high  production  prevailed 
on  these  dairies. 

The  size  of  the  herd  is  an  important  factor  in  the  efficient  use  of 
labor,  that  is,  the  size  of  the  herd  should  be  in  multiples  of  the  number 
that  one  man  can  economically  and  satisfactorily  care  for.  Herds  of 
odd  numbers  cause  more  or  less  loss  of  time. 

Proper  arrangement  of  buildings  and  corrals,  such  as  proximity 
of  the  granary  to  the  feeding  barn  or  the  milk  house  to  the  milking 
barn  saves  time.  The  use  of  labor  saving  machinery  is  another  factor 
of  importance.  However,  it  is  possible  for  the  operating  and  overhead 
costs  of  such  machinery  to  more  than  offset  the  saving  in  manual 
labor. 

Properly  planning  the  dairy  work  is  another  factor  in  economical 
use  of  labor.  This  implies  a  carefully  worked  out  schedule  and  daily 
routine  for  both  the  operator  and  his  men. 

Greater  efficiency  in  the  use  of  labor  may  also  be  brought  about 
by  increasing  production  and  applying  most  labor  to  those  cows  which 
will  respond  and  less  labor  to  those  that  do  not  justify  such  expendi- 
tures. 

ELIMINATING    BOARDER    COWS 

From  the  data  presented  in  the  preceding  tables,  it  is  possible  to 
find  the  point  in  the  amount  of  production,  to  fall  below  which  means 
a  loss  for  every  cow  thus  failing  to  measure  up  to  the  standard.  The 
desirability  of  properly  testing  cows  for  production  and  of  disposing 
of  unprofitable  animals  is  amply  shown  by  these  findings. 

Table  34  shows  the  amount  of  production  required  under  1922 
conditions  of  breeding,  feeding,  handling,  costs,  and  prices.  If  a 
cow  in  a  given  district  is  to  pay  for  her  keep,  she  must  produce  an 
amount  equal  to  the  figures  set  forth  in.  this  table  for  that  district. 
Cows  producing  less  are  maintained  at  a  loss  if  lacking  in  inherent 
possibilities  of  greater  production,  or  if  economies  cannot  be  prac- 
ticed to  reduce  costs.  Of  course,  if  higher  prices  are  obtained  from 
sales,  or  if  cheaper  feeds  or  labor  are  secured,  or  a  saving  in  other 
items  of  cost  brought  about,  the  required  production  per  cow  neces- 
sary to  break  even  will  be  lowered.  But,  conversely,  a  lower  price  for 
products  or  increased  costs  will  raise  the  standard  of  production  which 
the  individual  cow  will  be  called  upon  to  make  if  she  is  to  be  profit- 


156 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


able.  Knowledge  of  what  one's  cows  are  doing  as  individuals  is  a 
substantial  aid  in  reorganizing  the  business  for  greater  profits.  In 
this  connection  it  may  be  added  that  some  dairymen  deem  it  wise  to 
retain  temporarily  some  poor  animals  in  order  to  utilize  feed  and 
labor  that  otherwise  would  go  to  waste,  so  that  some  returns  are  forth- 
coming pending  ultimate  weeding  out  of  the  poorer  individuals. 

The  actual  average  production  per  cow  as  worked  out  in  these 
studies  is  also  shown  in  table  34. 


TABLE  34 
Production  tek  Ctw  Necessary  to  Meet  all  Items  of  Average  Costs 


District 

Required  production  per 
cow  per  year 

Actual  production  per  cow  in 
1922  as  shown  by  studies 

Whole  milk — 
pounds 

Butterfat — 
pounds 

Whole  milk — - 
pounds 

Butterfat — 
pounds 

Kum'-ol  It-Del  Norte 

7950 
6850 

8100  or 
942  gals. 
7550 

6985 
5123 

8560 
G445 

8750 

369 
333 
243 

328 
351 
298 
233 

328 
285 
185 
315 

6184 
5618 

7180  or 
835  gals. 
6614 

6793 
5993 

8041 
6225 

6829 

267 

249 

216 

Contra  Costa-Alameda- 

230 

270 

238 

234 

Los  Angeles-Orange- 

309 

267 

161 

Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz  .. 

248 

In  many  cases,  it  can  be  shown  that  the  high  labor  cost  and  the 
high  feed  cost  on  many  dairies  are  directly  traceable  to  low  produc- 
tion per  cow. 

Closely  correlated  with  the  elimination  of  boarder,  cows  is  the 
desirability  of  breeding  up  the  productive  capacity  of  the  present 
herds.  Saving  of  calves  from  cows  known  to  be  good  producers  is 
sometimes  practiced.  With  this  may  well  go  more  attention  to  the 
keeping  and  using  of  better  bulls  on  dairies  where  the  raising  of 
young  stock  to  replace  aging  cows  or  to  increase  the  size  of  the  herd 
is.  both  economically  practical  and  in  line  with  the  inclinations  of  the 
operator. 

In  collecting  data  from  most  of  the  districts,  the  number  of  pure- 
bred cinr!  registered  bulls  was  recorded.  It  is  perhaps  pertinent  at 
this  point  to  recapitulate  the  findings. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK,  AND  BUTTERFAT      157 

Of  the  grand  total  of  13,667  cows  and  371  bulls  in  the  233  herds 
in  the  10  districts  where  such  data  were  collected,  there  were  reported 
but  528  purebred  cows  and  207  purebred  bulls.  This  is  equivalent 
to  slightly  less  than  4  per  cent  of  purebred  cows  and  56  per  cent  of 
purebred  bulls  in  use. 

On  some  dairies,  particularly  in  centers  where  whole  milk  pro- 
duction is  the  rule  and  limited  quarters  for  dairying  and  lack  of 
pasture  for  young  stock  largely  precludes  the  raising  of  heifers,  com- 
mon bulls  may  be  justifiable  because  of  reduced  investment  and  small 
depreciation.  In  fact,  where  all  calves  are  to  be  vealed,  the  use  of 
a  beef  breed  rather  than  a  dairy  breed  bull  may  actually  help  to 
increase  profits.  On  the  other  hand,  though,  good  management  sug- 
gests the  use  of  good  dairy  breed  bulls,  the  saving  of  promising 
calves,  and  their  proper  rearing  wherever  feed  conditions  permit. 

PROFITABLENESS    OF    VEAL1NG     CALVES 

From  a  study  of  feed  costs  involved  in  raising  calves  it  is  evident 
that  increased  profits  can  be  obtained  by  giving  attention  to  the 
value  of  milk  fed  to  calves  and  the  length  of  time  calves  are  kept  on 
whole  milk.  Although  this  is  a  phase  which  concerns  production  of 
young  stock  rather  than  production  of  milk,  the  opportunity  for 
increasing  profits  is  such  that  attention  may  well  be  called  to  its 
possibilities.  It  is  a  matter  to  be  worked  out  by  each  dairyman  for 
himself,  but  it  is  not  a  difficult  task  to  compute  the  amounts  of  milk 
fed,  both  whole  and  skim,  determine  the  value  of  this  mi;k,  and  com- 
pare the  figure  with  the  value  of  the  calf  at  weaning  or  vealing  age. 
On  some  dairies,  killing  of  calves  when  dropped  will  be  found  justi- 
fiable. On  other  dairies,  the  raising  of  heifer  calves  for  ultimately 
placing  in  the  milking  herd,  or  of  young  stock  having  a  high  breed 
value,  is  fully  justified.  Proper  feeding  is,  of  course,  essentia1,  and 
economy  in  cost  should  not  be  sought  at  the  expense  of  correct  feeding 
principles. 

Data  are  presented  below  illustrating  this  point,  based  on  the  1922 
costs,  manner  of  feeding  as  reported  by  dairymen,  and  with  all  items 
other  than  feed,  such  as  labor,  use  of  buildings  and  corrals,  ignored. 
For  purposes  of  comparison,  four  districts  are  discussed.  These  are 
Marin-Sonoma,  San  Luis  Obispo,  Fresno,  and  Monterey-San  Benito- 
Santa  Cruz. 

In  the  Marin-Sonoma  district,  the  general  practice  was  found  to 
consist  in  feeding  calves  to  be  kept  for  veal  for  periods  of  from  three 
to  four  weeks.  During  this  time,  each  calf  consumed  an  average  of 
42  gallons  of  whole  milk,  containing  14.5  pounds  of  butterfat,  which, 


158  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

at  prevailing  market  price,  was  worth  $6.35.  The  average  selling 
price  per  calf  amounted  to  $10.22,  so  that  the  average  net  returns 
per  calf  amounted  to  $3.87  more  than  the  cost  of  the  milk.  Out  of 
this  would  still  be  deducted  labor,  use  of  equipment,  and  similar 
items,  if  net  profit  were  to  be  determined. 

In  San  Luis  Obispo  County,  calves  saved  for  ultimate  vealing  are 
permitted  to  run  with  their  dams  until  three  or  four  weeks  old,  when 
they  are  sold.  Based  on  the  average  production  per  cow  for  the 
dairies  under  observation,  it  was  possible  to  figure  the  amount  of 
marketable  milk  used  by  the  calves  which  otherwise  could  have  been 
sold.  It  amounted  to  38  gallons  of  whole  milk  containing  12.3  pounds 
of  butterfat,  which  at  the  prevailing  market  rates  had  a  value  of 
$5.73.  The  average  selling  price  for  the  calves  was  $9.60,  thus  netting 
$3.87  a  calf  above  the  value  of  the  milk  consumed. 

Dairymen  in  Fresno  County  who  raised  veal  valves  fed  them  for 
from  three  to  seven  weeks  upon  a  diet  of  whole  milk.  On  an  average, 
each  calf  utilized  58.4  gallons  of  whole  milk  containing  17.8  pounds 
of  butterfat,  worth  at  the  prevailing  market  $11.12.  The  average 
selling  price  of  calves  was  $7.50,  so  that  the  average  calf  in  this 
district  failed  by  $3.62  of  paying  for  the  feed  that  it  consumed. 

In  the  Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz  district,  dairymen  had 
the  choice  of  selling  many  of  their  calves  for  "from  $4.00  to  $6.00 
when  four  or  five  days  old  or  else  for  an  average  of  $9.04  when  three 
or  four  weeks  old  after  either  feeding  them  by  hand  or  allowing  them 
to  run  with  the  cows.  When  the  longer  feeding  period  was  used,  the 
calves  consumed  an  average  of  42  gallons  of  milk,  having  a  market 
value  of  $7.60.  Long-time  feeding,  therefore,  returned  but  $1.44 
more  than  the  cost  of  feed,  as  against  a  return  of  $4.00  to  $6.00  for 
a  few-days-old  calf. 

Other  districts  are  not  discussed  because  in  several  of  them  the 
dairymen  dispose  of  any  calves  possessing  a  value  at  the  time  that 
the  cow's  milk  can  be  used  for  human  consumption,  or  else  the  calves 
are  killed  when  they  are  born  because  of  the  lack  of  any  kind  of 
market.  Vealing  few-days-old  calves  was  found  to  be  the  rule  in  the 
Alameda-Contra  Costa-Santa  Clara  and  the  Los  Angeles-Orange  dis- 
tricts. While  a  little  selling  of  new-born  calves  was  practiced  in  San 
Diego  County,  a  large  number  of  calves  were  killed  because  feeding 
was  deemed  to  be  prohibitive.  Discarding  calves  was  the  rule  in 
Humboldt  County. 

Factors  to  be  taken  into  account  in  determining  the  best  practice 
to  be  used  in  connection  with  calves  are :  Value  of  calf  at  time  when 
the  dam's  milk  can  be  used  for  human  consumption,  prices  received 


Bulletin  372]     C0ST  0F  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat     159 

for  veal  at  end  of  colostrum,  period  and  later,  length  of  time  that  calf 
is  kept  on  whole  milk,  possibility  of  substituting  skimmilk  in  whole 
or  in  part  during  the  feeding  period,  market  value  of  the  milk  and 
butterfat  consumed,  gain  of  calf  during  the  feeding  period,  and  suit- 
ability of  the  breed  for  vealing. 

In  some  districts,  it  was  evident  that  more  attention  to  the  raising 
of  calves  for  addition  to  the  milking  herds  of  other  sections  might  well 
receive  attention,  as,  for  example,  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County,  where 
the  existing  conditions  of  feed,  labor,  market  price,  and  available 
facilities  are  favorable.  Raising  of  calves  from  suitable  stock  for  sale 
to  dairymen  operating  under  conditions  which  prohibit  the  rearing  of 
their  cows  has  possibilities  not  only  as  a  side  line  but  as  a  possibility 
for  actually  replacing  some  of  the  present  dairying  activities. 

VALUE   OF   MANURE    PRODUCED    BY  THE    MILKING    HERDS 

From  the  figures  showing  dairymen's  estimates  of  what  they  con- 
sidered the  manure  produced  by  their  milking  herds  to  be  worth  to 
them,  it  is  evident  that  many  dairymen  are  either  hazy  concerning 
the  amount  of  credit  which  should  be  allowed  for  this  by-product,  or 
else  are  misinformed  as  to  the  actual  value  that  manure  has  in  con- 
nection with  maintaining  the  crop  producing  power  of  land. 

In  table  35  is  shown  the  average  value  of  manure  per  cow  made 
up  from  dairymen's  estimates  in  each  district.  The  range  in  value 
is  considerable  and  partly  traceable  to  varying  market  demands 
according  to  location.  For  example,  the  citrus  and  truck  growers  of 
southern  California  provide  a  market  that  is  reflected  in  the  estimates 
of  the  dairymen  supplying  manure  to  these  growers,  a  condition  that 
does  not  hold  in  many  sections,  such  as  Humboldt,  Marin-Sonoma  and 
San  Luis  Obispo  districts. 

TABLE  35 
Showing  Dairymen's  Estimates  of  the  Average  Annual  Value  per  Animal 

for  Manure  Produced  Value  per  Head 

_..  ,  .  for  Manure  Produced 

JJlstrict  by  Dairy  Animals 

Humboldt    $3.37 

Marin-Sonoma    1.62 

Alameda-Contra   Costa-Santa   Clara 4.17 

Sacramento-Yolo    2.46 

San  Joaquin-Stanislaus   4.08 

Fresno   3.44 

Kern    4.20 

Los  Angeles-Orange   12.54 

San  Diego  9.18 

San  Luis  Obispo .33 

Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz  ..., 1.57 


160  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

When  one  considers  that  the  average  output  for  a  1000-pound  cow 
during  the  year  amounts  to  2.8  tons  of  urine  and  9.88  tons  of  dung, 
or  a  total  of  12.68  tons  a  year,  containing  79.22  pounds  of  potash, 
125.21  pounds  of  nitrogen,   and  24.30  pounds  of  phosphorus,  it  is 

onable  to  believe  that  the  value  of  manure  is  under- valued.  Not 
all  this  content  can  ordinarily  be  recovered  by  the  dairyman,  but 
only  a  relatively  small  proportion  need  be  retained  to  exceed  most 
of  the  estimates  of  worth  as  shown  in  the  foregoing  table.  If  market 
values  of  plant  foods  are  taken  at  20  cents  a  pound  for  nitrogen, 
5  cents  for  phosphorus,  and  4  cents  for  potash,  a  year 's  output  to  the 
cow  would  have  a  value  of  $29.43,  or  $2.28  a  ton. 


DECREASING    MORTALITY 

Certain  losses  among  the  dairy  herds  were  reported  which  suggest 
that  there  is  opportunity  for  some  attention  to  this  phase  of  dairy 
lcoking  to   the   lessening  of  mortality   from   avoidable 
A  number  of  animals  were  recorded  as  having  died  because 
or  bloat  or  from  swallowing  bits  of  baling  wire.    Possible  losses  from 
bToiting  msy  be  reduced  or  avoided  by  following  the  practice  of  cer- 
tain  dairy  men  who  keep  their  losses  at  a  very  low  figure  by  holding 
tha  cows  in  corrals  until  the  dew  is  off  the  feed,  by  giving  dry  rough- 
age  such  as  straw  before  turning  the  cows  out,  by  accustoming  the 
cow3  to  new  feeds  gradually,  and  by  not  pasturing  them  when  the 
:  is  f  osly.     Careful  watch  for  possible  bloating  is  likewise  main- 
tained by  these  dairymen  and  prompt  measures  taken  to  relieve  ani- 
in  distress. 

of  a  pair  of  pliers  in  opening  hay  bales  instead  of  hacking 
with  a  hatchet  does  away  with  the  danger  of  cutting  off  short  bits 
re  which  may  be  swallowed  by  the  cow  and  cause  internal  com- 
itions. 

An  eicmentary  knowledge  of  veterinary  science  would  be  an  ad- 
to  all  dairymen.     Early  treatment  of  minor  ailments  will  not 
nee  mortality  but  also  the  expense  incidental  to  hiring  small 
,'oI),  done. 

Re  ognition  of  troubles  which  may  ultimately  prove  disastrous  and 
disposal  of  animnls  when  they  still  possess  a  meat  value  are 
of'  increasing  the  profit  r.bl  en  ess  of  the  dairy  on  some  farms. 


Bulletin  372]      C0ST  0F  producing  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      1  61 


SUMMARY 

The  cost  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  on  246  California 
dairies  in  11  districts,  studied  during  1922,  was  found  to  b  ows  : 

Humboldt-Del  Norte  district,  $2.73  per  100  pounds  of  whole  mLk  or 
61.2  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat  in  the  Areata  district  and  $2.41  per 
100  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  54.5  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat ;  Marin- 
Sonoma  district,  49.2  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat;  Alameda-Co 
Costa-Santa  Clara  district,  $2.83  per  100  pounds  of  whole  milk  (24.4 
cents  a  gallon)  ;  Sacramento-Yolo  district,  $2.46  per  100  pounds  ol 
whole  milk  or  64.2  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat;  San  Joaquin-Stanislaus 
district,  $2.63  per  100  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  60  cents  a  pound  or 
butterfat;  Fresno  district,  $2.34  per  100  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  60.2 
cents  a  pound  of  butter;  Kern  district,  $2.23  per  100  pounds  of  whole 
milk  or  50.1  cents  a  pound  of  butterfat;  Los  Angeles-Orange  district, 
$3.73  per  100  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  at  the  rate  of  97  cents  a  pound 
of  butterfat  contained  in  whole  milk ;  San  Diego  district,  $3.67  per 
100  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  at  the  rate  of  86  cents  a  pound  ol  butter- 
fat contained  in  wrhole  milk;  San  Luis  Obispo  district,  53. G  cents  a 
pound  of  butterfat;  Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz  district,  $2.54 
cents  per  100  pounds  of  whole  milk  or  70  cents  a  pound  of  butter  Lit. 

During  the  period  of  the  study,  manual  labor  costs  by  district 
averages  ranged  from  24.1  to  38.2  cents  an  hour;  management  from 
8.4  .to  39  per  cent  of  the  sums  spent  for  manual  labor ;  horse  labor 
costs  from  8.0  to  21.9  cents  an  hour;  truck  and  automobile  use  from 
4.8  to  12.5  cents  a  mile;  pasture  from  $2.68  to  $23.16  a  cow  a  year; 
hay  from  $12.05  to  $23.59  per  ton;  concentrates  from  $26.09  to 
$42.67;  silage  from  $4.81  to  $7.86;  and  green  feed  from  $3.10  to  $6.42 
per  ton. 

Part  III  records  the  unit  factor  findings  of  the  amounts  of  the 
different  items  which  together  make  up  the  cost  of  producing  whole 
milk  and  butterfat. 

*  Ways  of  increasing  profits  suggested  by  the  study  are  greater 
economy  in  the  use  of  labor  and  feed,  elimination  of  calf  feeding, 
more  efficient  use  of  manure,  and  more  definite  attempts  to  reduce 
mortality. 

The  number  of  dairies  in  each  district  from  which  complete  and 
usable  cost  data  were  obtained  were  as  follows :  Humboldt-Del  Norte, 
25 ;  Marin-Sonoma,  19 ;  Alameda-Contra  Costa-Santa  Clara,  20 ;  Sac- 


162  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

r  amen  to- Yolo,  41 ;  San  Joaquin-Stanislaus,  17 ;  Fresno,  17 ;  Kern,  15  ; 
Los  Angeles-Orange,  40 ;  San  Diego,  13 ;  San  Luis  Obispo,  20 ;  Mon- 
terey-San Benito-Santa  Cruz,  19. 

On  the  basis  of  the  dairies  studied  in  each  district,  the  findings 
indicate  that  of  the  total  output  the  proportion  produced  at  a  cost 
equal  to  or  below  the  average  price  received  during  the  year,  by  dis- 
tracts, amounted  as  follows :  Humboldt-Del  Norte,  vicinity  of  Areata, 
none,  Orick-Requa,  16.4  per  cent  of  butterfat  and  15.3  per  cent  of 
whole  milk ;  Marin-Sonoma,  41  per  cent  of  butterfat ;  Alameda-Contra 
Costa-Santa  Clara,  30  per  cent  of  whole  milk ;  Sacramento-Yolo,  8  per 
cent  of  butterfat  and  24  per  cent  of  whole  milk ;  San  Joaquin-Stanis- 
laus, 44  per  cent  of  milk ;  Fresno,  50.8  per  cent  of  butterfat  and  55.6 
per  cent  of  whole  milk ;  Kern,  70  per  cent  of  butterfat  and  74  per  cent 
of  whole  milk;  Los  Angeles-Orange,  34.1  per  cent  of  milk;  San  Diego 
62.2  per  cent  of  milk;  San  Luis  Obispo,  40  per  cent  of  butterfat; 
Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz,  10  per  cent  of  both  butterfat  and 
whole  milk. 

Of  the  various  items  making  up  gross  cost  of  production,  labor  and 
feed  are  most  important.  Percentages  for  each  of  these  items  and  the 
total  of  the  two  were  found  to  be  for  the  various  districts  as  follows: 
Humboldt-Del  Norte,  labor  31.2,  feed  54.5,  total  85.7  per  cent ;  Marin- 
Sonoma,  labor  24.8,  feed  53.3,  total  78.1  per  cent;  Alameda-Contra 
Costa-Santa  Clara,  labor  29.4,  feed  45.5,  total  74.9  per  cent;  Sacra- 
mento-Yolo, labor  28.6,  feed  47.2,  total  75.8  per  cent;  San  Joaquin- 
Stanislaus,  labor  31.5,  feed  42.0,  total  73.5  per  cent;  Fresno,  labor 
30.0,  feed  45.9,  total  75.9  per  cent;  Kern,  labor  30.4,  feed  52.0,  total 
82.4  per  cent;  Los  Angeles-Orange,  labor  20.9,  feed  56.5,  total  77.4 
per  cent;  San  Diego,  labor  26.7,  feed  51.8,  total  78.5  per  cent;  San 
Luis  Obispo,  labor  37.4,  feed  43.5,  total  80.9  per  cent;  Monterey-San 
Benito-Santa  Cruz,  labor  29.3,  feed  53.1,  total  82.4  per  cent. 

Of  the  total  output  of  these  dairies,  the  amount  sold  by  each  group 
ranged  from  83.1  to  97  per  cent,  the  remainder  being  retained  at  the 
dairy  for  feeding  of  calves  or  for  family  or  employees'  use.  Averages 
for  eight  of  the  eleven  districts  show  that  between  91.7  and  94  per 
cent  of  the  output  was  sold.  One  district,  Los  Angeles-Orange,  sold 
more  than  94  per  cent,  the  figure  for  this  district  being  97  per  cent, 
while  two  districts  recorded  less  than  91.7  per  cent  sold,  these  being 
Fresno  with  83.1  per  cent  and  San  Diego  with  88  per  cent. 


BULLETIN  372]       C0ST  0F  PRODUCING  MARKET  MILK  AND  BUTTERFAT      163 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The  combined  efforts  of  many  have  gone  into  the  preparation  of 
this  publication.  It  is  not  possible  to  list  all  who  have  helped,  but  it 
is  right  that  attention  be  called  to  those  who  have  rendered  substantial 
aid  in  making  this  publication  possible. 

Much  credit  is  due  to  Mr.  W.  N.  Brown  and  to  Mr.  J.  A.  McKee, 
employed  for  about  one  and  one-half  years  in  the  collecting,  assem- 
bling, and  analyzing  of  the  various  data,  for  their  zeal  and  interest. 
Mr.  Brown,  in  addition  to  his  other  duties,  contributed  substantial 
aid  in  the  preparation  of  the  final  manuscript.  Mr.  A.  E.  de  Fremery 
rendered  valuable  assistance  in  the  collecting  and  assembling  of  field 
data.    All  helped  in  conducting  meetings  with  dairymen. 

Credit  is  due  to  the  dairymen  who  for  many  months  collected  data 
and  patiently  submitted  to  seemingly  endless  questioning,  without 
whose  ready  and  willing  cooperation  this  contribution  of  economic 
dairy  data  would  be  far  from  complete  and  even  perhaps  actually 
impossible  of  attainment. 

Occupying  responsible  positions  as  local  representatives  were  F.  J. 
Obara  and  W.  A.  Beer  in  Humboldt  and  Del  Norte  counties,  C.  C. 
Rosa  and  E.  Brain,  assisting  in  western  Marin  and  Sonoma  counties, 
George  Wolf  in  San  Joaquin  County,  M.  L.  Gorow  in  Stanislaus 
County,  L.  R.  Ward  in  Fresno  County,  G.  P.  Penfield  in  Kern 
County,  L.  D.  Sanborn,  Arthur  E.  Dewey,  G.  C.  Radditz,  and  I.  J. 
Wolf  in  Los  Angeles  County,  John  Bichan  in  Orange  County,  W.  W. 
Coke  in  San  Bernardino  County,  M.  G.  Salmina  in  San  Luis  Obispo 
County,  P.  Livingston  in  Monterey  County,  A.  G.  Rinn  in  Santa  Cruz 
County.  Others  who  had  a  substantial  part  in  the  carrying  forward 
of  the  work  were  W.  Bedford,  H.  B.  Cobb,  M.  H.  Kimball,  T.  R. 
Screaton,  S.  K.  Starr,  and  Professor  F.  W.  Woll. 

The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics,  aided  financially  in  the  carrying  on  of  the  work. 
Their  appropriation  of  $1500  toward  the  salary  of  one  of  the  men 
during  18  months  beginning  January  1,  1922,  was  equivalent  to 
9  per  cent  of  the  California  State  funds  made  available  for  the  work. 
The  Department's  funds  were  utilized  in  the  collection  of  data  in 
the  Alameda-Contra  Costa-Santa  Clara  and  San  Diego  districts. 

Duplicate  sales  sheets  prepared  for  us  by  a  number  of  creamery 
operators  and  their  office  assistants  were  of  substantial  aid.    So,  too, 


164  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

was  the  assistance  of  assessors  and  tax  collectors  in  helping  us  secure 
the  proper  taxation  charges  made  against  the  various  dairies. 

Substantial  contributions  in  the  way  of  office  assistance  were  made 
by  R.  E.  Largent,  L.  E.  Haseltine,  R.  E.  Bowen,  Arthur  E.  Dewey, 
C.  I.  Brainerd,  and  others  who  labored  to  put  the  field  records  in 
usable  shape. 


